Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry April4Sky,
but I think you are misreading wat is ment here: There is a registered call at GNR at 22:40. No discussion about that. Thus the police initially thought that was the time of the disappearance.
But police forces later on verified that the detection (of the disappearance) and the subsequent alarm (rised by Kate McCann) occurred between 22:00 and 22:10 (based on McCann produced timeline).
That is how I read this. Note that the initial thought of the PJ - that the disappearance happened at 22:40 (the time of the registered call) is not that strange. Why wait 40 minutes to call the police why you immediately are sure that an abduction took place?
I don't believe so.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:hFcq5_vqAIoJ:www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann+local+police+arrive+before+detecti ve%27s+madeleine&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au

10.15pm: Oldfield goes down to the 24-hour reception at the bottom of the hill to raise the alarm. Police are called.
10.30pm: Local police are first to arrive on the scene.
11.10pm: Detectives from the Policia Judiciaria (PJ) arrive having been contacted by police constables.
The Detectives from the Policia Judiciaria are the ones who didn’t arrive until 11.10pm.

And all this fits in with Mrs Fenn who after the first call offered to phone the police and was told they had already been called.

The PJ may have received a call at 11.40 but the local police were called and arrived earlier.
 
I don't believe so.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:hFcq5_vqAIoJ:www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann+local+police+arrive+before+detecti ve%27s+madeleine&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au

10.15pm: Oldfield goes down to the 24-hour reception at the bottom of the hill to raise the alarm. Police are called.
10.30pm: Local police are first to arrive on the scene.
11.10pm: Detectives from the Policia Judiciaria (PJ) arrive having been contacted by police constables.
The Detectives from the Policia Judiciaria are the ones who didn’t arrive until 11.10pm.

And all this fits in with Mrs Fenn who after the first call offered to phone the police and was told they had already been called.

The PJ may have received a call at 11.40 but the local police were called and arrived earlier.


Sorry April4Sky, you are referring to an article in the Guardian (which I cannot open btw).
Please read the files:
Initial call (registered!!!) to the local police (GNR) at 22:40
Arrival local police (GNR) 10 minutes later at 22:50
Arrival Policia Juardicia one hour later at about 24.10 (because the had to come from Portimao).
From M Oldfield we know from mrs Knight he wasn't in the appartment with the others. I have to look into the files to see if his statement (that he went to the reception to call for the police at 11.15 can be corroborated by other statements). The reception is within minutes walk and I can't imagine the receptionist waited for about a small half an hour to follow up such a request.
 
Sorry April4Sky, you are referring to an article in the Guardian (which I cannot open btw).
Please read the files:
Initial call (registered!!!) to the local police (GNR) at 22:40
Arrival local police (GNR) 10 minutes later at 22:50
Arrival Policia Juardicia one hour later at about 24.10 (because the had to come from Portimao).
From M Oldfield we know from mrs Knight he wasn't in the appartment with the others. I have to look into the files to see if his statement (that he went to the reception to call for the police at 11.15 can be corroborated by other statements). The reception is within minutes walk and I can't imagine the receptionist waited for about a small half an hour to follow up such a request.


I can not open Aprils links either so its not just you :)
 
WENDY MURPHY: Dead little girls + drugs = suspicion of child *advertiser censored*

The Patriot Ledger
Posted Mar 28, 2009 @ 05:00 AM
QUINCY —

When children die – and parents are potential suspects – we often talk about abuse and neglect.

But when sedatives are found in a child’s body or at a crime scene, we need to talk about something else, too.

Child *advertiser censored*.

The FBI has long taught about the use of sedative drugs in the making of child *advertiser censored*. Benzodiazepines such as Valium and Klonopin – and cheap alternatives such as chloroform – are commonly used to keep kids calm. Many of these drugs also cause short-term amnesia such that the victim has little or no memory of the event when the drugs wear off.

It’s scary to think that ANYONE would do such a thing to a child, but get this: According to the U.S. Attorney General, child *advertiser censored* is a multi-billion dollar industry and the people most likely to be making it are the victims’ parents.

This sick “industry” not only destroys innocent souls – it is a life-threatening “business” because the build-up of sedatives in kids’ bodies can cause deadly seizures.

If we’re going to protect children from this scourge, we have to talk more openly about it, especially during high profile cases when millions of people are watching.

Take the following stories, for example, though it should be emphasized that we have not heard from law enforcement whether there is any correlation between the deaths of these little girls and child *advertiser censored*.

JonBenet Ramsey was a beautiful dyed-blonde 6-year-old when she was found dead in the basement of her home. The day her body was found, her parents hired criminal attorneys and refused to submit to separate police interviews. Three search warrants were issued for child *advertiser censored*, and while police said none was found in the home, we really don’t know the details of what if anything was found elsewhere – or why they were looking for child *advertiser censored* – because the files in the case are being withheld from public view. We DO know that undigested pineapple was found in the child’s stomach and we know that a bowl of pineapple found on the kitchen table was taken as evidence, presumably tested for the presence of drugs. But we don’t know the results because, again, the file is being hidden. We also know that the child had “chronic” vaginal injuries including an “eroded” hymen, which many experts say is evidence of prior ongoing sexual abuse. When the parents eventually agreed to be interviewed by police, they were asked at length about sedatives in the home, such as Xanax and Klonopin.

Caylee Anthony was a sweet little 2-year-old when she “went missing” from her home in Florida. Her body was later found and her mother stands charged with her murder, in part because she failed to report Caylee missing for more than a month, and then lied about the circumstances of her disappearance. Human decomposition was found in the trunk of her mother’s car – along with Caylee’s hair and traces of chloroform. Law enforcement officials said that photographs of Caylee had recently been deleted from her mother’s computer.

Maddie McCann was an adorable 4-year-old who “went missing” from her hotel room in Portugal while on vacation with her British parents. The child’s hair and human decomposition were reportedly found in the trunk of her parents’ rental car. Early news reports indicated Maddie had been sedated by her parents to keep her asleep in the hotel room while they socialized nearby. The parents hired criminal attorneys and, after Maddie’s mom was named a suspect, she refused to answer police questions.

I don’t know if these cases are related to child *advertiser censored*. But I’m certain of three things. 1. Sedating victims is common. 2. The most valuable child *advertiser censored* depicts young, cute kids. 3. All three cases involve sedatives and young, cute kids.

According to the federal government, demand for child *advertiser censored* has skyrocketed because of the Internet, and will continue to rise unless we do a better job recognizing and talking about the problem when we see it.

It won’t be easy – in part because this stuff happens in secret, but also because we resist thinking about things that don’t feel good – and let’s face it – it doesn’t feel very good to believe parents sell their children for sex and *advertiser censored*.

But what’s more important? Children – or the comfort of our denial?

Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston and radio talk show host. She can be reached at wmurphy@nesl.edu


http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x ... child-*advertiser censored*
 
Take into account the rumours about Payne, the one who last seen the children when they were bathing.
There are two statements about known by the police regarding his strange behavior during a previous holiday to Mallorca and a statement by a social worker who
recognized him as someone with a past of sexual child abuse. This is (as far as we know) not further investigated!

Child abuse comes in all layers of the population, even among people with high education and a top job.
People who produce/practice child *advertiser censored* are generally parents or people in the immediate vicinity of the victim!

It is shocking to read how all these cases are similar and it will not surprise me - although to date no child *advertiser censored* photos of Madeleine have emerged - the solution should be sought in this direction. It is possible that they exercised this kind of practice in their own small circle of friends. This would be an explanation of the "pact of silence” amongst them

A terrible idea - especially if the McCann and their friends are not guilty of this - but for the safety of all the children in this group this simply MUST be investigated.

I hope that all who are so committed to the "right" of Madeleine will be able to get this case reopened.
 
Take into account the rumours about Payne, the one who last seen the children when they were bathing.
There are two statements about known by the police regarding his strange behavior during a previous holiday to Mallorca and a statement by a social worker who
recognized him as someone with a past of sexual child abuse. This is (as far as we know) not further investigated!

Child abuse comes in all layers of the population, even among people with high education and a top job.
People who produce/practice child *advertiser censored* are generally parents or people in the immediate vicinity of the victim!

It is shocking to read how all these cases are similar and it will not surprise me - although to date no child *advertiser censored* photos of Madeleine have emerged - the solution should be sought in this direction. It is possible that they exercised this kind of practice in their own small circle of friends. This would be an explanation of the "pact of silence” amongst them

A terrible idea - especially if the McCann and their friends are not guilty of this - but for the safety of all the children in this group this simply MUST be investigated.

I hope that all who are so committed to the "right" of Madeleine will be able to get this case reopened.

The night Madeleine went "missing" Gerry and Kate phoned there family saying it was important that they believed she had been kidnapped. They knew she had been kidnapped apparently because the shutters had been forced open ( another lie). Apparently this kidnapper had forced open the shutters and escaped through the small window..when it would have been far quicker and easier to walk straight through the door that the McCanns had so thoughtfully kept unlocked. And indeed why would a kidnapper arouse suspicion by climbing through a window when a door was unlocked anyhow? But anyhow...from the start..even though Madeliene was known to sleep walk etc Gerry was saying she had been taken by paedophiles. Yes I know the rumours about DP. I was also curious about the social workers statement. I do find it intriguing that DP was one of the last people to supposedly see her that night.. and Gerry immediately said after the " disappearance" that he trusted his friends. It was also Payne that picked this holiday. One thing I would say is no way would i want him around my children. Within a couple of weeks...Gerry was planning the one year anniversary event for the disappearance of Madeleine. From the start he said we would be back in Portugal in 2 years. From the start Gerry was trying to make this a long term strategy. How could he know at the beginning..she wouldnt be found at any time?

What i dont understand is...because of those Doctors making the statements that they did..followed by the social worker...and now Amaral...a LOT of rumours are floating around...and these people were quick enough to sue the media who they knew wouldnt fight back..so why dont they sue Amaral to make him stop his allegations? These people are Doctors..there reputations are at risk and if i was a patient of theirs i would change Doctors. My honest opinion is that Amaral would love these people to take him to court so he could get them inside a court room.

Another thing following on from Payne - he looks similar to Murat. Was this why the friends said they saw Murat ... to take any possible heat off of Payne?
 
My honest opinion is that Amaral would love these people to take him to court so he could get them inside a court room.

Another thing following on from Payne - he looks similar to Murat. Was this why the friends said they saw Murat ... to take any possible heat off of Payne?

McCanns are desperate. They tried to buy the rights of Amarals documentary, thus preventing it to be broadcasted in the UK. They didn't succeed, so they made their own. That they don't sue is very meaningful IMO.
About Payne: possible. It was Fiona Payne that stated she saw Murat. I reckon you recognise your own husband if you saw him, wouldn't you?

So tomorrow the documentary of Amaral will be broadcasted at TV1 in Portugal. Did you see the trailer yet?
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-what-lies-benneath-truth-trailer.html:Banane44:
 
For instance the Fenn statement:
"During that day nothing unusual happened until around 22:30 when, she was alone by then, she heard a woman screaming hysterically "we've let her down", which was repeated several times very upset. She went to her veranda and realized that it was the mother who screamed furiously. She asked the father, Gerry, what was happening, and he said that a child had been abducted. Asked she said she hadn't left her home and talked to Gerry from her veranda, which lets see the terrace of the ground floor. From the start it seemed strange to her that he had concluded a child had been abducted, because he didn't mention it was his daughter nor contemplated other scenarios. She had offered her help to Gerry, telling him to use her phone in order to contact the authorities, to which he replied it had already be done. This would have happened slightly after 22:30"

Two interesting points here. Did Kate only start screaming after she ran down to the tapas bar? If not, how come Gerry was there? Wasn't he supposedly at the restaurant with the others?

Two - the local police could not have arrived at 10.30 if Mrs Fenn's times are accurate, as she says she had the discussion about ringing the police then.
 
McCanns are desperate. They tried to buy the rights of Amarals documentary, thus preventing it to be broadcasted in the UK. They didn't succeed, so they made their own. That they don't sue is very meaningful IMO.
About Payne: possible. It was Fiona Payne that stated she saw Murat. I reckon you recognise your own husband if you saw him, wouldn't you?

So tomorrow the documentary of Amaral will be broadcasted at TV1 in Portugal. Did you see the trailer yet?
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-what-lies-benneath-truth-trailer.html:Banane44:
Oh I agree that Fiona would know her own husband...what i mean is...if they was concerned that someone had seen David doing something he shouldnt have been....or somewhere he shouldnt have been..then having a look alike around to blame was quite a a handy thing IMO

And if the McCanns thought that Amaral would sell them the rights to his documentary they are even MORE deluded than i thought lol. I admit at one point...i was totally against him...BUT..he is the only one whose trying to get the truth out there IMO and to get the case re opened. I guess for him its a matter of pride. His book totally sold out also so....obviously people DO want to know what he has to say.

To anyone who calls him the lame name " the disgraced cop who is making money" well..he was a cop for 27 years and well respected until he got foisted on to this case. The parents and there friends..instead of going to the press complaints instead chose to sue for money...so whats the difference? His career was ruined because of those people so..good luck to him if he c an make some money out of it.

The crap thing is i doubt any British Broadcaster will show it..but..they cant stop people watching it on the net though.
 
For instance the Fenn statement:
"During that day nothing unusual happened until around 22:30 when, she was alone by then, she heard a woman screaming hysterically "we've let her down", which was repeated several times very upset. She went to her veranda and realized that it was the mother who screamed furiously. She asked the father, Gerry, what was happening, and he said that a child had been abducted. Asked she said she hadn't left her home and talked to Gerry from her veranda, which lets see the terrace of the ground floor. From the start it seemed strange to her that he had concluded a child had been abducted, because he didn't mention it was his daughter nor contemplated other scenarios. She had offered her help to Gerry, telling him to use her phone in order to contact the authorities, to which he replied it had already be done. This would have happened slightly after 22:30"

Two interesting points here. Did Kate only start screaming after she ran down to the tapas bar? If not, how come Gerry was there? Wasn't he supposedly at the restaurant with the others?

Two - the local police could not have arrived at 10.30 if Mrs Fenn's times are accurate, as she says she had the discussion about ringing the police then.

What i dont understand is..you had Mrs Fenn and i think her niece? And wasnt one of the friends in the next door apartment? And we had people going in and out of the McCanns checking frequently ( supposedly) and a door that was unlocked...and yet we are expected to believe the kidnapper spent time breaking the shutters ( according to them) getting the window open..trying to get himself through it..and then Madeleine..and yet no one saw any of this? And Tanner and Oldfield didnt see the windows open when they went past after the "Kidnapping"? Not that I have ever tried to kidnap a child..but when the parents very kindly left the door unlocked why would anyone risk doing all that?

And when Kate ran in the bar..she said "They have taken her" who is they?

Also...that week it had been the me n checking the kids supposedly. Why was it the ONLY time Kate checked that week..that Madeleine just happened to be gone?
 
What i dont understand is..you had Mrs Fenn and i think her niece? And wasnt one of the friends in the next door apartment? And we had people going in and out of the McCanns checking frequently ( supposedly) and a door that was unlocked...and yet we are expected to believe the kidnapper spent time breaking the shutters ( according to them) getting the window open..trying to get himself through it..and then Madeleine..and yet no one saw any of this? And Tanner and Oldfield didnt see the windows open when they went past after the "Kidnapping"? Not that I have ever tried to kidnap a child..but when the parents very kindly left the door unlocked why would anyone risk doing all that?

And when Kate ran in the bar..she said "They have taken her" who is they?

Also...that week it had been the me n checking the kids supposedly. Why was it the ONLY time Kate checked that week..that Madeleine just happened to be gone?

I agree Isabella,
The shutters are the biggest mistake they made, IMO. The locked changed to open patiodoors the first change of story and really the first time my suspicion against the parents rised. From that point the story didn't fit anymore. Why o why would an abductor bother to open a window while the door is open. There were no signs no trace that someone went in or out of that window (f.i. the moss that grew round it wasn't touched). If they didn't open that window, maybe they would have got away with it.

About Payne, I agree too. It makes sense (I mean as Fiona surely would reckognise her own husband) that she is the one to make such a statement (to direct the attention to someone else)
When you read the rogatory interviews of Payne, he tells he He took part in the searches, having carried out most of them alone. He was at times accompanied by Matthew Oldfield. (There are statements he was seen in the surroundings of the millenium and church) Statements of others that joined the searching never mentioned Payne as present. So what was Payne doing there alone (or with Oldfield). Concealing a body maybe? Wouldn't surprise me.
 
For instance the Fenn statement:
"During that day nothing unusual happened until around 22:30 when, she was alone by then, she heard a woman screaming hysterically "we've let her down", which was repeated several times very upset. She went to her veranda and realized that it was the mother who screamed furiously. She asked the father, Gerry, what was happening, and he said that a child had been abducted. Asked she said she hadn't left her home and talked to Gerry from her veranda, which lets see the terrace of the ground floor. From the start it seemed strange to her that he had concluded a child had been abducted, because he didn't mention it was his daughter nor contemplated other scenarios. She had offered her help to Gerry, telling him to use her phone in order to contact the authorities, to which he replied it had already be done. This would have happened slightly after 22:30"

Two interesting points here. Did Kate only start screaming after she ran down to the tapas bar? If not, how come Gerry was there? Wasn't he supposedly at the restaurant with the others?

Two - the local police could not have arrived at 10.30 if Mrs Fenn's times are accurate, as she says she had the discussion about ringing the police then.

Appearently Kate didn't scream in the appartment when she found that Maddie was vanished. She did a quick initial search and went back to the restaurant rising the alarm at 22:00 (btw left the sleeping twins with an open patiodoor and window and an pedofile predator or predator ring "abductor" in the vincinity). Within few minutes the whole bunch was back in the appartment and the rumour (Fenn heared) started. According to McCann timeline this would be 22:05 of at most 22:10 but according to the Fenn timeline "slightly after 22:30".
The call to GNR (local police) was registered 22:40 (this fits with the Fenn statement, not with the statement of McCann who "lost" more than half an hour on what?) IMO this half an hour was needed for Gerry's alibi.
 
Appearently Kate didn't scream in the appartment when she found that Maddie was vanished. She did a quick initial search and went back to the restaurant rising the alarm at 22:00 (btw left the sleeping twins with an open patiodoor and window and an pedofile predator or predator ring "abductor" in the vincinity). Within few minutes the whole bunch was back in the appartment and the rumour (Fenn heared) started. According to McCann timeline this would be 22:05 of at most 22:10 but according to the Fenn timeline "slightly after 22:30".
The call to GNR (local police) was registered 22:40 (this fits with the Fenn statement, not with the statement of McCann who "lost" more than half an hour on what?) IMO this half an hour was needed for Gerry's alibi.


When Kate ran back to the bar were all the friends supposedly in the bar then or not ( It gets kinda confusing)?

One thing that just come to me..so Kate claims she came to the apartment to check on the children ( the first time that week)..and Madeleine was gone. She said she looked around the apartment but that she wasnt there. Ok..so...before running back to the bar....wouldnt you k nock on the neighbours door and ask if they had seen or heard anything? Because...bearing in mind we know about Madeleine crying that other time..how did she know that Madeleine for eg hadnt gone to one of the neighbours?
 
Right, so because it is all so not natural / not logical behaviour, I don't swallow this story.
I for sure wouldn't do that. The tapas bar is just a little to far away for leaving the twins with door and window open. It seems orchestered.

What do you think of the news today Isabella. We hear about "sources close to the McCanns" telling us that McCanns wanted to buy the rights of Amarals documentary to avoid broadcasting in the UK.... Hmm Is the team breaking up?
What about Brian Kennedy. Why did he jump ship? (Is what I would like to know)
 
THE DOCUMENTARY OF AMARAL CAN BE SEEN TOMORROWNIGHT AT 20:00 PM (Greenwich time) at the following link:
http://www.tvtuga.com/content/view/33/159


Is it in Portugese at that link?

I can understand why the McCanns would want to buy the rights to it to ensure its not shown on British tv. Also if they had seen that they could adapt there documentary to go round the Amaral one. to make them seem more believeable.
 
The broadcast is in Portuguese mostly but underlined in English. Saw the trailer. Interesting. I will be present tonight at 20:00. Can't wait to see what Amaral has to reveal.
 
Right, so because it is all so not natural / not logical behaviour, I don't swallow this story.
I for sure wouldn't do that. The tapas bar is just a little to far away for leaving the twins with door and window open. It seems orchestered.

What do you think of the news today Isabella. We hear about "sources close to the McCanns" telling us that McCanns wanted to buy the rights of Amarals documentary to avoid broadcasting in the UK.... Hmm Is the team breaking up?
What about Brian Kennedy. Why did he jump ship? (Is what I would like to know)

Exactly. She doesn't knock on neighbors' doors immediately (one of which included another member of the party) she runs back to the bar--leaving the twins alone and sleeping. What if the kidnapper came back?

I'm quite sure the McCanns wanted to buy the rights of Amaral's documentary. They can use the Fund because after all, that would be a great way to make sure everyone stays "focused" on finding Madeleine--presumably arguing that after watching the documentary, people wouldn't be likely to believe Maddie was alive and as they put it, "findable." Which leads to the question--What will Amaral say that people find so convincing?
 
I agree Isabella,
The shutters are the biggest mistake they made, IMO. The locked changed to open patiodoors the first change of story and really the first time my suspicion against the parents rised. From that point the story didn't fit anymore. Why o why would an abductor bother to open a window while the door is open. There were no signs no trace that someone went in or out of that window (f.i. the moss that grew round it wasn't touched). If they didn't open that window, maybe they would have got away with it.

Right. And there were no fingerprints found on there other than Kate McCann's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
2,385
Total visitors
2,508

Forum statistics

Threads
603,306
Messages
18,154,748
Members
231,702
Latest member
Rav17en
Back
Top