Madeleine McCann general discussion thread #28

[Inana]

Actually looks like only one of the two guys was ex MI5, and the other, the owner of the company was a fraud.
Mind you, the other guy ( the ex MI5) was co-owner of the company so he probably knew about his business partner lying.

May this be why the British Media is ignoring their report, as if they write about their report, they have to write about the sources.. i.e the guys who are actually both on the other side of the law.

OH! Are these the two guys who were later convicted of something and have spent time in prison?

 

[haden]

OH! Are these the two guys who were later convicted of something and have spent time in prison?

Yes! These two.

 

[haden]

Thanks for the replies. I did a little reading in the mean time and you are all correct, haden, nt and cappacino.

There was one man who was an ex-MI5 agent, but was part of a private company formed after his service.

From this article in July of 2012, it appears that the McCann's did not suppress the file, it was the British government:

"Madeleine McCann file kept secret ~ The Home Office is refusing to release secret files on the Madeleine McCann case to avoid diplomatic ructions with Portugal.

"The documents are believed to record discussions with the Metropolitan Police about sensitive details of the baffling case.

"Rejecting attempts by a newspaper to see the files, the Home Office said there would be 'specific detriment to the UK’s relationship with Portugal' if they were released.

"It also claimed disclosure of three of the documents would 'stifle discussion' between officials.

"A Met review of the case was ordered last year after pressure from the Home Office and David Cameron.

"Sources said there were 'serious concerns' within the Met that they were investigating a 'foreign' case over which they had no jurisdiction.

"Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, of Rothley, Leicestershire, are convinced she is still alive. She was taken in May 2007 from a holiday apartment on the Algarve."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/329977/Madeleine-McCann-file-kept-secret

It seems there is always more to the story than scent.

Is this the same file? Not sure it is.

I think I read the PI file was given to PJ, but they don't work with E fits and plus the case was closed in PT, they couldn't have done any investigation on it.

 

[Inana]

Yes! These two.

Okay, so now it's coming together for me.

The report was created by people who were less than credible.

It jeopardized relations between Portugal and Britain.

Instead of trying to pick and choose what might be legitimate, they shelved the whole thing.

Thanks!

 

[Inana]

Is this the same file? Not sure it is.

I think I read the PI file was given to PJ, but they don't work with E fits and plus the case was closed in PT, they couldn't have done any investigation on it.

hmmmm. :seeya:

This was written July 1, 2012. PJ closed investigation in 2008. ?? I don't know.

I haven't heard about any other suppressed files.

 

[goldengirl57]

I've always believed that both Tanner and Smith were being truthful and that both saw a man with Madeleine.

Now I'm turning to the belief that both saw a man with a child, but NEITHER were Madeleine and both were simply a man with his own child. We now know Tanner did see a man who has been since been identified and discounted. Maybe the same can be said for the Smith sighting. In a tourist town, it is quite possible.

Just my own opinion. Any thoughts?

I agree Inana.

The only thing that puzzles me is why so few people about really. This was beginning of May and hardly any tourists milling about. When i have been on holiday even in May there have been lots of people coming out especially around 8pm for dinner and even then kids in buggies and things....

There seems to have been very few people about.

I have always thought JT saw someone why would she lie? But not the abductor but perhaps a person on holiday...

The Smith sighting I have NEVER thought it was GM way back in 2008 when i knew about it.

WHY would he be there?

It was toooo risky that route, was more populated and more bars and the Kelly bar was quite popular so there was more chance of him being seen if it was him, or even the abductor to be honest.

I think anyone who was clever enough to take the child away so quietly and in such a small window of opportunity would not be stupid enough to be caught walking along with her IMHO....:moo:

 

[goldengirl57]

The Smith sighting. Martin Smith came forward with the sighting after it was mooted that Robert Murat was in the frame for the abduction. Basically the story goes:

The Smith family, from Ireland, is in Luz for holidays, staying at their own holiday apartment; four adults and 5 children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland.

- approx 21h55, they are returning from "Kelly's Bar", heading north, all spread out along the street

- they pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall.

- The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.

- Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.

- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.

- The Smiths are secretly brought back to Portugal. On Saturday, 26 May, in Portimão, Smith and his two children are interviewed.

- Their testimony is credible, but given the lack of light in the area, they can't identify the man who was carrying the child.

- The described the way he walked and carried her; this image is strongly fixed in their memory.

..........................................................................................................

What I dont understand if they were following the case they must have been to know that Murat was implicated at the time, then they must have seen many photos of Gerry and Kate. Why then would not one of these photos make them sit up and realise it was GM...

I dont get this bit about the plane steps and the way the child was carried made him realise it was more likely GM who they saw.

The carrying of the child on the shoulder like that when they are asleep is quite normal most people would do it that way it gives security, also yes carrying them along the body too, but I always carried my babies on the shoulder.

How did he know Murat so well he could say for definate in the dark it was not him.

He actually said in his own words the person he saw was not dressed like a tourist...well Murat is not a tourist is he...

No the sighting is feel a bit like Who Shot John....a load of BS with a bit of truth added.

 

[haden]

I agree Inana.

The only thing that puzzles me is why so few people about really. This was beginning of May and hardly any tourists milling about. When i have been on holiday even in May there have been lots of people coming out especially around 8pm for dinner and even then kids in buggies and things....

There seems to have been very few people about.

I have always thought JT saw someone why would she lie? But not the abductor but perhaps a person on holiday...

The Smith sighting I have NEVER thought it was GM way back in 2008 when i knew about it.

WHY would he be there?

It was toooo risky that route, was more populated and more bars and the Kelly bar was quite popular so there was more chance of him being seen if it was him, or even the abductor to be honest.

I think anyone who was clever enough to take the child away so quietly and in such a small window of opportunity would not be stupid enough to be caught walking along with her IMHO....:moo:

To me the most significant are the search dogs tracks, as they were brought in quite early.

The dogs route is through the front door and to the car park.

 

[goldengirl57]

To me the most significant are the search dogs tracks, as they were brought in quite early.

The dogs route is through the front door and to the car park.

I have had a thought about it Haden.

I am wondering if a women took her.

someone who could get access to the front door with key etc.

The thing is for the dogs to scent the way they did outside it would mean the child would be walking yes?

Well I cant see her walking for a stange man.

BUT what if she was taken by a women or someone she knew or had seen. So easy to wait for the family to go to their meal, go straight in the apartment quietly through front door (has to have access), and then picks the child up or even lets her walk out, saying she was being taken to her mum and daddy.

Then straight back out through the front door, to the car park and car waiting.

Perhaps they knew it was quiet at that time, as a lot of people gone to dinner at 8pm and waited to be told the parents were sat at the table.

Done and dusted in a few minutes......holding breath so not to be seen.

The thing is I am totally dismissing the dogs now, NOT BECAUSE I dont believe in them far from it, but I am just going to ignore the fact of their findings and find a way that would work. The PJ have now obviously dismissed their findings and so has SY, so I AM going to as well for now.

I also think we have to concentrate ONLY on what the investigation brought up AFTER Amaral was taken off the case.

IMHO.

So could a women have done it, and if so why?

I know that there are a lot of women pedophiles now, even working within rings.....there was a nursery nurse recently in the UK in prison for it.

I only mention it as then the child would have been happy to walk out not be carried, as I cannot understand how she would still be asleep.....

Just thoughts....

 

[haden]

I have had a thought about it Haden.

I am wondering if a women took her.

someone who could get access to the front door with key etc.

The thing is for the dogs to scent the way they did outside it would mean the child would be walking yes?

Well I cant see her walking for a stange man.

BUT what if she was taken by a women or someone she knew or had seen. So easy to wait for the family to go to their meal, go straight in the apartment quietly through front door (has to have access), and then picks the child up or even lets her walk out, saying she was being taken to her mum and daddy.

Then straight back out through the front door, to the car park and car waiting.

Perhaps they knew it was quiet at that time, as a lot of people gone to dinner at 8pm and waited to be told the parents were sat at the table.

Done and dusted in a few minutes......holding breath so not to be seen.

The thing is I am totally dismissing the dogs now, NOT BECAUSE I dont believe in them far from it, but I am just going to ignore the fact of their findings and find a way that would work. The PJ have now obviously dismissed their findings and so has SY, so I AM going to as well for now.

I also think we have to concentrate ONLY on what the investigation brought up AFTER Amaral was taken off the case.

IMHO.

So could a women have done it, and if so why?

I know that there are a lot of women pedophiles now, even working within rings.....there was a nursery nurse recently in the UK in prison for it.

I only mention it as then the child would have been happy to walk out not be carried, as I cannot understand how she would still be asleep.....

Just thoughts....

I am thinking along the same lines. A woman possibly known to Madeleine but WHO? Someone whose DNA would be normal to be found in the apartment?
And then Madeleine walking the bare feet? Was she given the new shoes?
Was this someone not very mentally stable who heard her crying the night before?
The phone records would help in here, as if it was two people, it is more possible that at least one of them had the phone.
In this case it would have been a woman known to Madeleine, passing her to someone who was waiting in the car. And then that person selling her to someone who wanted to buy her. Or maybe the couple who wanted to keep her.
The woman then would be able to go back to her being around during the searches and she would not be suspected. Although this woman could be a man as well..
But then who opened the door of the children's bedroom wider when Gerry was there at 9.05?
And why was the window open?
Is it possible that whoever took Madeleine did not know that the patio door were left unlocked?

 

[Hexe]

I have had a thought about it Haden.

I am wondering if a women took her.

someone who could get access to the front door with key etc.

The thing is for the dogs to scent the way they did outside it would mean the child would be walking yes?

Well I cant see her walking for a stange man.

BUT what if she was taken by a women or someone she knew or had seen. So easy to wait for the family to go to their meal, go straight in the apartment quietly through front door (has to have access), and then picks the child up or even lets her walk out, saying she was being taken to her mum and daddy.

Then straight back out through the front door, to the car park and car waiting.

If the perp knew they were out for dinner, he/she knew also that the patio door were open and were not visible from the Tapas Bar. No need to have that key, especially if the front door was not double locked and could have been opened from inside.

 

[haden]

How did he know Murat so well he could say for definate in the dark it was not him.

He actually said in his own words the person he saw was not dressed like a tourist...well Murat is not a tourist is he...

No the sighting is feel a bit like Who Shot John....a load of BS with a bit of truth added.

Smiths own an apartment or house in the PDL area. This is why they probably know Murat well.

He owns an apartment in Praia da Luz on the Algarve coast, and was staying there with a large family group on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine was taken from an apartment at the Ocean Club.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/437948/Is-this-the-moment-of-Madeleine-McCann-s-kidnapping

 

[haden]

If the perp knew they were out for dinner, he/she knew also that the patio door were open and were not visible from the Tapas Bar. No need to have that key, especially if the front door was not double locked and could have been opened from inside.

There is lots of options here. That the snatcher did not know, that the snatcher used the front door on purpose, that the snatcher knew but did not want to use the patio doors.

I think the dogs route is some kind of a key. Why not using the patio doors and just go through them, cross the road and then you are on the car park.. why use the way around?

 

[Hexe]

I am thinking along the same lines. A woman possibly known to Madeleine but WHO? Someone whose DNA would be normal to be found in the apartment?

You don't shed any huge amounts of DNA right and left with each movement. If the perp just went in, took the kid and went out, wearing gloves, he/she wpould not leave any DNA behind.

And then Madeleine walking the bare feet? Was she given the new shoes?

She could have been carried by the perp and still leave the smell for the dogs.

The phone records would help in here, as if it was two people, it is more possible that at least one of them had the phone.

If they had some brains, they left their phones home.

But then who opened the door of the children's bedroom wider when Gerry was there at 9.05?

That's a detail I always found weird. Who actually remembers how wide were the door open? In his statement he was even talking about degrees! You have no reason to keep an eye at how wide the door is open inside of a flat. You just don't pay much attention to things like this. You wouldn't even notice that.

And why was the window open?

Just gimme one person, not being McCanns, who saw that window open...

 

[Hexe]

There is lots of options here. That the snatcher did not know, that the snatcher used the front door on purpose, that the snatcher knew but did not want to use the patio doors.

If the snatcher was there, watching McCanns, he had to kow the patio door was unlocked. They used that door leaving and you can't lock it from the outside. The perp had to know. And if he knew, why make things more complicated and risky, why to obtain a key, and all that jazz? No sense here.

 

[haden]

You don't shed any huge amounts of DNA right and left with each movement. If the perp just went in, took the kid and went out, wearing gloves, he/she wpould not leave any DNA behind.

I agree. But we don't know how long the person has spent in the apartment.
Look for example at this scenario.
An OC worker or someone with the keys enters the apartment with the key, this person is on duty that night and possibly has a reason to enter the apartment, like for a reason of children crying.. This person has 'a task' to get Madeleine from the apartment because Madeleine knows them and would not be afraid to go with them. The first plan is to get Madeleine out of the apartment and to a car which is going to be parked next to the apartment. They are in when Gerry arrives and they hide in Madeleine's room huge wardrobe but Gerry notices the doors being opened more than when he left for dinner. Gerry leaves but the person still in started thinking it is too dangerous, maybe they see Gerry talking to JW through another window and they decide to take a different route.
They text the accomplice to instead of the front door park into the car park next to OC reception and they go around along the dogs route with Madeleine and to the car park.

She could have been carried by the perp and still leave the smell for the dogs.

This is questionable

If they had some brains, they left their phones home.

Maybe they needed them to unable them to communicate

That's a detail I always found weird. Who actually remembers how wide were the door open? In his statement he was even talking about degrees! You have no reason to keep an eye at how wide the door is open inside of a flat. You just don't pay much attention to things like this. You wouldn't even notice that.

Please see the theory above

Just gimme one person, not being McCanns, who saw that window open...

I don't know of any person but I believe this is a true statement.

 

[goldengirl57]

To me the most significant are the search dogs tracks, as they were brought in quite early.

The dogs route is through the front door and to the car park.

How odd i answered this it isnt showing.

I think it could have been a women....not sure where my post went...

I think she went into the front door perhaps had access to it, and just took the child quickly even allowing the child to walk alongside her. I can imagine her not being scared of a women....then going out the front door quickly and to the car park, hence the dog scent.

Again I am discounting the dogs in the apartment not that I disagree but because obviously the PJ and the SY are not accounting for it, so for now I am going back to basics, and taking them out FOR NOW....

I am not even bothering with anything before Amaral only after he was taken off the case.

There are women pedophiles and there are women who work for pedophile rings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-Vanessa-George-Ill-be-out-in-two-years.html

Just one of the many....

 

[Hexe]

I agree. But we don't know how long the person has spent in the apartment.
Look for example at this scenario.
An OC worker or someone with the keys enters the apartment with the key, this person is on duty that night and possibly has a reason to enter the apartment, like for a reason of children crying. This person has 'a task' to get Madeleine from the apartment because Madeleine knows them and would not be afraid to go with them. The first plan is to get Madeleine out of the apartment and to a car which is going to be parked next to the apartment. They are in when Gerry arrives and they hide in Madeleine's room huge wardrobe

If the perp wasn't drooling, bleeding or peeing in the wardrobe, there still would be no significant amount of the DNA left. And no reason for the LE to swab the wardrobe for DNA.

but Gerry notices the doors being opened more than when he left for dinner. Gerry leaves but the person still in started thinking it is too dangerous, maybe they see Gerry talking to JW through another window and they decide to take a different route.
They text the accomplice to instead of the front door park into the car park next to OC reception and they go around along the dogs route with Madeleine and to the car park.

That had to be some very, very dumb criminals. Why even text the accomplice? Why not to wait till Gerry goes back to Tapas, then sneak out to the car? These criminals must like having everything more difficult. Anyway walking in and taking the child away does not take that long. If the perp watched McCanns and 5A, he could wait for the best moment, with nobody around, immediately after the parents left for dinner or after the checkup.

Maybe they needed them to unable them to communicate

How much of communication did they need to meet near 5A and take Maddie from the unlocked apartment?

Please see the theory above

The theory above does not explain McCanns memory for the details nobody usually pays attention to.

 

[goldengirl57]

I am thinking along the same lines. A woman possibly known to Madeleine but WHO? Someone whose DNA would be normal to be found in the apartment?
And then Madeleine walking the bare feet? Was she given the new shoes?
Was this someone not very mentally stable who heard her crying the night before?
The phone records would help in here, as if it was two people, it is more possible that at least one of them had the phone.
In this case it would have been a woman known to Madeleine, passing her to someone who was waiting in the car. And then that person selling her to someone who wanted to buy her. Or maybe the couple who wanted to keep her.
The woman then would be able to go back to her being around during the searches and she would not be suspected. Although this woman could be a man as well..
But then who opened the door of the children's bedroom wider when Gerry was there at 9.05?
And why was the window open?
Is it possible that whoever took Madeleine did not know that the patio door were left unlocked?

Yes that is the sticking point the bedroom door and he said he saw her at 9.10, so it would have to be 9.40 then....

Well something made me think about it. We are to believe mrs Fenn rang a friend about the child crying etc, was it sort of knowledge that the children were left crying....like chinese whispers perhaps it did the rounds left crying for alittle then total abuse, left all the time etc etc, and someone decides to take action.....who knows. Who was the mystery maid someone wrote to Charles about?

Yes perhaps a disturbed women who felt they didnt deserve the child, and took her away.

Did you see that film that was to be released after Maddy went missing GONE BABY GONE. It was pulled for a year i think. I watched it and it was very thought provoking. Children can be taken for many reasons, not just pedophilia etc.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/

I am going right back to basics, as nothing seems to be moving forward does it.

 

[goldengirl57]

If the perp knew they were out for dinner, he/she knew also that the patio door were open and were not visible from the Tapas Bar. No need to have that key, especially if the front door was not double locked and could have been opened from inside.

Yes very true, my only thoughts is there was a child gate on the top, and the stairs are quite steep and you walk straight on the pavement in front of people....

Was it a safe route? Carrying say a child asleep down steep steps and negotiating a stair gate. One thing I wondered was the stair gate kept open or close at night? If open then not a problem but I would have closed it if the patio door was unlocked just in case one of the children came out.....I say I WOULD HAVE....

For me the front door makes more sense its quiet there, and in the corner and dark....