do you think maddie is alive or dead
- Thread starter Clutchbag
- Start date
- Status
One of the GNR's fingerprints were also on that window. He shouldn't have been touching that window without gloves on.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 546
If he should have been touching it at all.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 105
What exactly does this have to do with Madeleine's disappearance?
people are saying that Kate McCann shouldn't have been touching the window but neither should the GNR. It seems to be blame the McCanns for everything but when the police etc make mistakes then it's ok.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 105
The GNR are not responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.
The McCanns are.
:banghead:
BUt they wanted to find out if it was possible the abductor entered from the window, you know, as you do inbetween searching!
:what:
but of course they were being proactive and thinking would help police whenthey arrived of course, you know whikst tampering with the evidence they thought was there, lets not forget they told all their friends and relatives inthe UK THAT night that the shutters were jemmied, what a lie
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 105
Kate admitted that she never once physically searched for Madeleine.
Add that to the fact that she never once called her daughter's name, and you have got some extremely atypical behaviour for a mother of a lost toddler.
So atypical in fact, as to be outright suspicious...I mean, you even call for a lost dog.
:maddening:
:cow:
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 105
Anyone who knows the case, knows the evidence.
<modsnip>
But, I like to be thorough so here's the link.
Jane Hill: "I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6690000/newsid_6692900/6692935.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm
So. Kate tells Jane Hill that even though she did not physically search, she still worked "really hard" to get her daughter back.
The rogatory interviews make it very clear that Kate never left the apartment once in the first hours, but sat on her bed and prayed, and Gerry with her after an initial 5 minutes of running around the resort like a <modsnip>
Logically, it seems to me that she must be dead. Here are my reasons for thinking this:
1. If she was taken by a pedophile to be sexually abused, it's unlikely that the person would have kept her around. Pedophiles usually prefer a specific age - one who desired a child as young as Madeleine would no longer desire her as she has grown up. Also, the older the child gets the greater the risk that she'll escape or tell someone about the abuse. Most children taken by pedophiles are killed after a short time. (When you look at the exceptions, they are children who were much older when they were taken (teens), so the men were attracted to more physically developed girls than someone who would take a three-year-old.)
2. Although the parents suggest that Madeleine was taken by someone who wanted to raise her as his or her own child, this seems very unlikely to me. If you were going to kidnap a child from that flat, why not take one of the non-verbal, younger twins? Much less risky to have a child who can't say "this is not my mom!" or have ongoing memories of a past with different parents. With the distinct marking on her eye, I would think that a stolen Madeleine would have been identified by someone by now.
3. So, if she was taken by a stranger, she is more than likely dead. The other option is that she was not kidnapped, but died in the apartment and her parents disposed of her body. This does seem the most likely to me, based on the timelines and the behaviour of the parents, and in this option, too, Madeleine is dead.
So, sadly, I think that sweet little girl has passed on.
Tink
1. If she was taken by a pedophile to be sexually abused, it's unlikely that the person would have kept her around. Pedophiles usually prefer a specific age - one who desired a child as young as Madeleine would no longer desire her as she has grown up. Also, the older the child gets the greater the risk that she'll escape or tell someone about the abuse. Most children taken by pedophiles are killed after a short time. (When you look at the exceptions, they are children who were much older when they were taken (teens), so the men were attracted to more physically developed girls than someone who would take a three-year-old.)
2. Although the parents suggest that Madeleine was taken by someone who wanted to raise her as his or her own child, this seems very unlikely to me. If you were going to kidnap a child from that flat, why not take one of the non-verbal, younger twins? Much less risky to have a child who can't say "this is not my mom!" or have ongoing memories of a past with different parents. With the distinct marking on her eye, I would think that a stolen Madeleine would have been identified by someone by now.
3. So, if she was taken by a stranger, she is more than likely dead. The other option is that she was not kidnapped, but died in the apartment and her parents disposed of her body. This does seem the most likely to me, based on the timelines and the behaviour of the parents, and in this option, too, Madeleine is dead.
So, sadly, I think that sweet little girl has passed on.
Tink
Tink,
How does it work timeline wise that her parents most liekly did it.
I constructed a timeline based on what people outside the tapas nine stated and it is like this.
17:30 - madeleine seen alive and well by children's club staff
18:00 - 19: 30 Gerry at tennis courts
20:30 Kate and gerry arrive at dinner and seem normal. (this is about when it started to get dark
21:00 - 21:15 gerry checks on children, and at some point spends a few minutes talking to jermey wilkins who sees that he has come from the bottom of the patio gates and stated gerry appeared normal. During these fifteen minutes gerry is only alone for five or so minutes
22:00 kate goes to check, and raises the alarm. she is on;ly alone for a max of 15 minutes
after this time the mccanns are surrounded by people, and several people including mw staff search the flat and find no trace of madeleine.
so if her parents did it it means they had removed her from the flat by ten. They either did this in the five minutes they were doing the checks when it was dark, or during the hour before they appeared at dinner when it was daylight. This means they had to not only find madeleine dead, but decide not to help her and dispose of her body with no evidence of any motive for this. Tehy then had to take her body from the flat and hide it somewhere it was never found, and had to do this on foot with no digging implements, in a place they did not know well, and only had access to public areas. Not only was the place so good not one person ever found it, but not one witness saw them yet there were people coming and going, and as it is unlikely they did all this in five minutes it is most likely they woudl have had to do this in broad daylight.
As for an abductor, the patio doors were unlocked, and faily secluded, so anyone coudl ahve come in, taken madeleine and walked out either ste of doors in under five minutes. As for witnesses - well tanners description matches the smith family (who never identified gerry as the man they saw carrying the child), yet there was no way they each could have heard of the others description so it is not unfeasible that was the abductor. Plus a man walking carrying a child is not an unusual sight there as people collect children from the creche, whereas a person hiding a body, or being seen walking through the village carrying a bag big enough to hide a three year old's body is more likely to be noticed, especially when there picture is seen around the world just a few hours later.
How does it work timeline wise that her parents most liekly did it.
I constructed a timeline based on what people outside the tapas nine stated and it is like this.
17:30 - madeleine seen alive and well by children's club staff
18:00 - 19: 30 Gerry at tennis courts
20:30 Kate and gerry arrive at dinner and seem normal. (this is about when it started to get dark
21:00 - 21:15 gerry checks on children, and at some point spends a few minutes talking to jermey wilkins who sees that he has come from the bottom of the patio gates and stated gerry appeared normal. During these fifteen minutes gerry is only alone for five or so minutes
22:00 kate goes to check, and raises the alarm. she is on;ly alone for a max of 15 minutes
after this time the mccanns are surrounded by people, and several people including mw staff search the flat and find no trace of madeleine.
so if her parents did it it means they had removed her from the flat by ten. They either did this in the five minutes they were doing the checks when it was dark, or during the hour before they appeared at dinner when it was daylight. This means they had to not only find madeleine dead, but decide not to help her and dispose of her body with no evidence of any motive for this. Tehy then had to take her body from the flat and hide it somewhere it was never found, and had to do this on foot with no digging implements, in a place they did not know well, and only had access to public areas. Not only was the place so good not one person ever found it, but not one witness saw them yet there were people coming and going, and as it is unlikely they did all this in five minutes it is most likely they woudl have had to do this in broad daylight.
As for an abductor, the patio doors were unlocked, and faily secluded, so anyone coudl ahve come in, taken madeleine and walked out either ste of doors in under five minutes. As for witnesses - well tanners description matches the smith family (who never identified gerry as the man they saw carrying the child), yet there was no way they each could have heard of the others description so it is not unfeasible that was the abductor. Plus a man walking carrying a child is not an unusual sight there as people collect children from the creche, whereas a person hiding a body, or being seen walking through the village carrying a bag big enough to hide a three year old's body is more likely to be noticed, especially when there picture is seen around the world just a few hours later.
Well, assuming they have an hour, it seems very simple to me. One parent carries the (apparently sleeping) child down to the ocean and puts her body in the water. Done. Nobody would pay much attention to someone carrying a sleeping child in early evening. They were around this holiday location long enough to presumably know about tides, undertows, etc. -they went for runs and I believe went swimming. And if her body did wash up? Well, the McCanns would just say the abductor must have put her in the ocean. The water would likely remove all evidence.
You say it would have only taken an outside abductor five minutes to go in and remove the child. But as I (and others) have said before: how does this abductor know the doors are unlocked? How can he be sure that Madeleine won't wake up and scream (and remember Gerry is standing very nearby, talking to someone - surely he'd react to his daughter's screams?) or that the twins won't wake and scream? It seems like an entirely unlikely risk to take.
You say that Gerry carrying the child would have been noticed. Yet if there was an abductor, he wasn't really noticed. Only Jane Tanner's odd story (in which Gerry and friend did not see her, or the person, yet they were all close by). You say her story is consistent, yet when I read it she changes from barely being able to see anything because it is so dark to giving details about the fabric of the man's pants! Pretty changeable. Plus the Smiths' story. So for all the people around, only one, possibly two, people even saw and remembered someone with a child.
I would imagine that during the busier dinner time, there would have been lots of people carrying and walking with children. Who would notice one more father with a sleeping baby? Plus, by not raising the alarm until much later in the evening, they put that later time in people's heads. People would not be thinking "hmm, I saw a man carrying a sleeping toddler at 7:45" because they had in their minds that it happened after 10:00 p.m. So they'd forget about anything they'd seen earlier in the evening.
Tink
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 105
But Gerry was "noticed".
By the Smith family.
Oh but that's right, they were only 80% certain. Like the DNA found at the cadaver sites was only 80% Madeleine's.
Somehow 20% is more proof of McCann innocence than 80% is of their guilt, which didn't make sense when I went to school, but then I wasn't educated in the great UK public education system.
80>20. Back in the day.
By the Smith family.
Oh but that's right, they were only 80% certain. Like the DNA found at the cadaver sites was only 80% Madeleine's.
Somehow 20% is more proof of McCann innocence than 80% is of their guilt, which didn't make sense when I went to school, but then I wasn't educated in the great UK public education system.
80>20. Back in the day.
First the smiths at first said they had no idea who the man was. Later all of the smiths stuck to this apart from one of the nine. This smith said he could not identify the mans face as it was dark, and he did not have his glasses, but that by the body language he was 60% that it may have been gerry. However the others in his group did nto support this, and other non-tapas nine witnesses put gerry at the complex at this time. The PJ discounted it as gerry.
Not one piece of madeleine's dna was found. Also not material that coudl have been hers was ever in an area alerted to by the evrd. The evrd never alerted in the boot of the car, only at the card fobb containing gerry;s dna. The evrd's alerts are also not just for cadavers.
Not one piece of madeleine's dna was found. Also not material that coudl have been hers was ever in an area alerted to by the evrd. The evrd never alerted in the boot of the car, only at the card fobb containing gerry;s dna. The evrd's alerts are also not just for cadavers.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 105
Like a broken record.
60 - 80% certainty means 20 - 40% uncertainty.
60-80> 20-40.
The point is actually not the percentages, compelling as they are.
The point is, neither the Smith sighting of Gerry, nor the swabs being located at the cadaver sites, should have occured in the first place.
I'm still waiting for a logical explanation for this.
60 - 80% certainty means 20 - 40% uncertainty.
60-80> 20-40.
The point is actually not the percentages, compelling as they are.
The point is, neither the Smith sighting of Gerry, nor the swabs being located at the cadaver sites, should have occured in the first place.
I'm still waiting for a logical explanation for this.
There was no smith sighting of gerry. Not one smith at the time identified gerry, only one of them later said by body language alone it may have been gerry but they were far from certain and stressed they never identified the face and were not supported by the others in their party, and several other witnesses inc. MW staff put gerry elsewhere. It is untrue the smiths positively identified gerry.
No swabs have ever been identified as containing the dna of madeleine, no swabs that coudl have been the dna of madeleine were identified at an alert site. The only dna that was ever identified at an alert site was found to come from someone who was alive. So the logical explanation for your claims, is that they are incorrect and do not match up with the evidence.
If you have evidence that says the smiths positively identified gerry, that madeleine's dna was identified, that her dna was found at an alert site, and that the alert sites mean there was definitley a body there as opposed to grimes, harrisons, and ORs statements that the evrd alerted to bodily fluids from living donors then please provide it. TIA.
Tink,
The harrison report makes it clear that madeleine could not have been dumped in the sea or the beach by the mccanns given the witness timelines of when the mccanns were at the complex.
As for knowing if the patio doors were unlocked, the patio doors were of the sliding door variety that cannot be locked from the outside, so if gerry was seen to leave by the patio door then it was obvious to anyone watching they were unlocked.
so if the mccanns disposed of her body it was not at the beach or the sea, so it had to be somewhere else, somewhere the public could access and did not require digging materials. and whilst people might not notice a man carrying a child they tend to notice them burying or disposing of them.
as for the risks an abductor took - is this not the same with any abduction? Polly klass for one was taen from her home, jaycee lee dugaard was taken in broad daylgiht in full view, a little girl called jessica was taken from he rhome by a neighbour and dispite the fact she was over ten she did nto scream. Child abductors take risks, as taking a child is never going to be risk free.
Also sleeping children do not tend to wake easily - and someone watching the flat would have seen gerry only spend a couple of minutes there so had a good idea the children were fast asleep. Plus the abductor was not to know gerry was on the road chatting, and even if the children did scream the abductor could have gone by the time someone ran in. Lets face it, there is always the possibility it was another robbery and this one went wrong, and the reason madeleine was taken was because she woke up and the intruder paniked. It coudl very easily have gone wrong for the abductor, and if that had happened this would have been a one day wonder of a british couple catching an intruder in their holiday flat. The abductor took a risk like all child abductors and it paid off. Look at the case of katrice lee major, she disappeared in a space of less than two minutes in a busy supermarket and not one person saw a thing, yet she was abducted an the abductor took a huge risk in taking her and got away with it. recently a cas ein the UK, a little girl was seen getting into a vehicle and sadly so far has not been found. However there was a child witness and a man has been arrested and charged with her abduction and murder - the abductor took a huge risk in taking her like this, and if the police have charged the correct person it did not pay off in that the person was caught. Can you think of any crimes against a child that do not involve the risk of being caught?
and the alarm was raised at ten, no-one claimed the abduction happened then, so people were being asked to think if they had seen anything suspicious that evening.
Donjeta the one hour comes from the fact that gerry was at tennis between six and seven thirty. Of course kate could have done it in the hour and a half gerry was away, but then the same problems arise - finding such a good hiding place on foot in a publicly accesssible place without one witness. Plus why hide the body if the mccanns were in the flat when it happened, children have accidents all the time why cover one up, and if there was an accident that was covered up then woudl nto blood have been spilt and cleaning products used, yet according to forensics this did not happen.
No swabs have ever been identified as containing the dna of madeleine, no swabs that coudl have been the dna of madeleine were identified at an alert site. The only dna that was ever identified at an alert site was found to come from someone who was alive. So the logical explanation for your claims, is that they are incorrect and do not match up with the evidence.
If you have evidence that says the smiths positively identified gerry, that madeleine's dna was identified, that her dna was found at an alert site, and that the alert sites mean there was definitley a body there as opposed to grimes, harrisons, and ORs statements that the evrd alerted to bodily fluids from living donors then please provide it. TIA.
Tink,
The harrison report makes it clear that madeleine could not have been dumped in the sea or the beach by the mccanns given the witness timelines of when the mccanns were at the complex.
As for knowing if the patio doors were unlocked, the patio doors were of the sliding door variety that cannot be locked from the outside, so if gerry was seen to leave by the patio door then it was obvious to anyone watching they were unlocked.
so if the mccanns disposed of her body it was not at the beach or the sea, so it had to be somewhere else, somewhere the public could access and did not require digging materials. and whilst people might not notice a man carrying a child they tend to notice them burying or disposing of them.
as for the risks an abductor took - is this not the same with any abduction? Polly klass for one was taen from her home, jaycee lee dugaard was taken in broad daylgiht in full view, a little girl called jessica was taken from he rhome by a neighbour and dispite the fact she was over ten she did nto scream. Child abductors take risks, as taking a child is never going to be risk free.
Also sleeping children do not tend to wake easily - and someone watching the flat would have seen gerry only spend a couple of minutes there so had a good idea the children were fast asleep. Plus the abductor was not to know gerry was on the road chatting, and even if the children did scream the abductor could have gone by the time someone ran in. Lets face it, there is always the possibility it was another robbery and this one went wrong, and the reason madeleine was taken was because she woke up and the intruder paniked. It coudl very easily have gone wrong for the abductor, and if that had happened this would have been a one day wonder of a british couple catching an intruder in their holiday flat. The abductor took a risk like all child abductors and it paid off. Look at the case of katrice lee major, she disappeared in a space of less than two minutes in a busy supermarket and not one person saw a thing, yet she was abducted an the abductor took a huge risk in taking her and got away with it. recently a cas ein the UK, a little girl was seen getting into a vehicle and sadly so far has not been found. However there was a child witness and a man has been arrested and charged with her abduction and murder - the abductor took a huge risk in taking her like this, and if the police have charged the correct person it did not pay off in that the person was caught. Can you think of any crimes against a child that do not involve the risk of being caught?
and the alarm was raised at ten, no-one claimed the abduction happened then, so people were being asked to think if they had seen anything suspicious that evening.
Donjeta the one hour comes from the fact that gerry was at tennis between six and seven thirty. Of course kate could have done it in the hour and a half gerry was away, but then the same problems arise - finding such a good hiding place on foot in a publicly accesssible place without one witness. Plus why hide the body if the mccanns were in the flat when it happened, children have accidents all the time why cover one up, and if there was an accident that was covered up then woudl nto blood have been spilt and cleaning products used, yet according to forensics this did not happen.
- Status