Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[UKgirl]

Exactly.

If my baby was missing, the absolute last thing that would cross my mind would be to prepare a timeline for LE.

You would be out searching in the cold dark night, wouldn't you?

What father can sit down with his buddies and sketch out a "timeline", while searchers are crawling all over town looking for your baby?

Doesn't that mean that Gerry and crew expected to be asked to account for their movements?

Why?

If my baby was missing from her bed, I would be screaming her name, looking for her, rocking, sobbing, crying, panicking.

I would not be thinking of sketching out my own personal movements for the day...who cares if I had a cup of tea or a game of tennis before she vanished? It wasn't me, so none of that is relevant.

Settling down, tearing a cover off his own missing daughters book, then rehearsing their timeline (they did more than one draught) is not the thought process of an innocent, panicking father...rather, a butt covering guilty one.

It is also interesting to note Kate had no input on the timeline. She wasn't even in the room when Gerry and his cronies were creating it.

If you take it upon yourself (unasked) to create a timeline about your missing baby, wouldn't that baby's mother be an essential inclusion and source of information?

No, Kate sat on the bed while Gerry was staging, LE and the rest of the resort were out searching. She just sat there, literally, then got busy on the phone.

I've always wondered why people call others far away at 2am with tales of disaster they can do nothing about.

Why not wait till morning? Why ruin other people's sleep in a different country, when your baby could conceivably still be found curled up asleep in an odd corner somewhere?

Summoning attention for herself, not her child...a consistent theme with these two.

:moo:

That really sticks out for me. Why were they not looking, i know I would be looking in deep snow, pouring rain just for a hint or a glimpse of my baby girl. But to them, they just seem to want to cover their backs....suspicious in my eyes.

 

[Inana]

Actually my point was that you couldn't show that there was no evidence of sedation because there is no body. You cant claim to know something you dont just as much as i can't. HOw can you claim there is no sedation either!.

But, they did test the twins:

The Telegraph: The twins were also tested for sedatives; no traces were found: <?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said, “It would be right to say those tests show no evidence of sedatives in their systems. It backs up Kate and Gerry’s claims that they have never sedated the children and explains why they are so certain they can prove that the allegation is just another smear.”<o></o>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566664/Proof-McCanns-did-not-sedate-Madeleine.html<o></o>
<o></o>
<o> </o>

 

[Inana]

the tax driver story first came out in february 2008 when he said he saw madeleine with three men and a woman who looked like her mother on the night she disappeared, ie may 3


four years later it was in the papers again and five years later today, the story was rehashed, but the date was changed to may 4, to suggest she was alive after the 3rd may....????


the mccanns and their spokeaman poo poohed the original sighting as he had said he took her in his cab that night at around 8 pm....when we all know she was tucked up in bed that night!

i wouldnt belive all u read in the papers

The point of the article is that no one official has ever questioned him to even hear his story.

Maybe it should be disregarded. Maybe he's a blind, drug addled, bat-ship crazy lunatic.

But PJ should have questioned him and hopefully someone will now hear him out now.

Isn't the search for Madeleine worth one official interview after six years?

 

[SapphireSteel]

But, they did test the twins:

The Telegraph: The twins were also tested for sedatives; no traces were found: <?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said, “It would be right to say those tests show no evidence of sedatives in their systems. It backs up Kate and Gerry’s claims that they have never sedated the children and explains why they are so certain they can prove that the allegation is just another smear.”<o></o>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566664/Proof-McCanns-did-not-sedate-Madeleine.html<o></o>
<o></o>
<o> </o>

I'm glad you posted this, it is a perfect example of what a good PR man can do.

The results of the "testing" were announced by Clarence.

This article is dated October, so presumably the twins were subject to "tests" perhaps six months after that night. Pointless, much?

Clarence didn't elaborate when this testing took place, but has trumpeted out the "results" as "proof", results which coincidentally were supplied by "scientists" in the McCann employ.

No word on what "scientists" what laboratory, or what sort of testing the twins were subject to.

A perfect example of "spin", which the Telegraph have published as "Proof".

Does it ever end? I don't know who is dumber, the Telegraph for publishing and promoting that vacuous little PR exercise, or its bovine readers for believing a word that comes out of that twat's mouth.

:stormingmad:

 

[UKgirl]

But, they did test the twins:

The Telegraph: The twins were also tested for sedatives; no traces were found: <?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said, “It would be right to say those tests show no evidence of sedatives in their systems. It backs up Kate and Gerry’s claims that they have never sedated the children and explains why they are so certain they can prove that the allegation is just another smear.”<o></o>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566664/Proof-McCanns-did-not-sedate-Madeleine.html<o></o>
<o></o>
<o> </o>

When was this test done...the same night?. Because i cant see evidence of sedation being in a childs body months after they were sedated. Totally useless inofrmation and proves nothing

 

[Clutchbag]

The point of the article is that no one official has ever questioned him to even hear his story.

Maybe it should be disregarded. Maybe he's a blind, drug addled, bat-ship crazy lunatic.

But PJ should have questioned him and hopefully someone will now hear him out now.

Isn't the search for Madeleine worth one official interview after six years?

he was interviewed by the PT police but they dismissed the sighting as at 8pm on the night of May 3rd they believed Madeleine was in her bed as her parents had said....the PT police had no reason to disbelieve them about anything at that point.......you may as well address your question to all the private investigators the mccanns used....why did they not interview him?as soon as he made his story public.....oh I know...because he said he saw Madeleine in a cab at 8pm Thursday night when Gerry Mccann saw her in bed at 9pm.......!

 

[Clutchbag]

When was this test done...the same night?. Because i cant see evidence of sedation being in a childs body months after they were sedated. Totally useless inofrmation and proves nothing

The tests were done in September 2007!!! After they returned to the UK...well, alledgedly

 

[Inana]

When was this test done...the same night?. Because i cant see evidence of sedation being in a childs body months after they were sedated. Totally useless inofrmation and proves nothing

It was hair follicle test, according to the link I provided. Hair will show drug use until it is cut or falls out. 3 inches of hair would show about 6 months of of drug usage. 6 inches of hair growth would show 12 months of drug usage.

http://www.omegalabs.net/abouthairtesting/hairtestingfaq/hairtestingfaq.aspx

so we only need to know how long the hair was at the time of the test to determine the time frame of the results.

 

[SapphireSteel]

It was hair follicle test, according to the link I provided. Hair will show drug use until it is cut or falls out. 3 inches of hair would show about 6 months of of drug usage. 6 inches of hair growth would show 12 months of drug usage.

http://www.omegalabs.net/abouthairtesting/hairtestingfaq/hairtestingfaq.aspx

so we only need to know how long the hair was at the time of the test to determine the time frame of the results.

Sorry, I need more than that.

I need to know when the tests were done, who by, and WHAT SORT OF TESTING WAS DONE??

You don't just run one test and pick up any drug. Some drugs do not even enter the hair follicle as they are so quickly metabolised. Others need very specialised testing to locate.

Did the twins receive a hair cut between May and (whenever)?

Until these details are revealed, the McCann boast about the drug testing is nothing but that, a boast, and an empty one.

If you have unlimited funds as these two did, you can pay a "laboratory" to say just about anything you want them to say.

It proves nothing...apart from the fact that the McCann knew LE suspected they drugged their children.

:cow:

 

[Inana]

he was interviewed by the PT police but they dismissed the sighting as at 8pm on the night of May 3rd they believed Madeleine was in her bed as her parents had said....the PT police had no reason to disbelieve them about anything at that point.......you may as well address your question to all the private investigators the mccanns used....why did they not interview him?as soon as he made his story public.....oh I know...because he said he saw Madeleine in a cab at 8pm Thursday night when Gerry Mccann saw her in bed at 9pm.......!

I agree, with so many private investigators, they should have talked to this man as well. He is persistent that he has information. Some one in operation grange should take an hour and talk to him. Just sayin'...

PJ--Polícia Judiciária.

 

[Inana]

Could someone explain to me which British publications are reputable and which ones are rags? I believe the Guardian and Times and The Telegraph are reputable but not sure???

 

[SapphireSteel]

None of them.

Especially in this case.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Clutchbag]

:scared:

Could someone explain to me which British publications are reputable and which ones are rags? I believe the Guardian and Times and The Telegraph are reputable but not sure???

No difference in this case, in fact the reputable ones have told more lies than the rags, funny but true

 

[SapphireSteel]

Those very same McCann friendly publications, will turn on them like a savage dog if/when the truth comes out.

I can't wait.

 

[Clutchbag]

Those very same McCann friendly publications, will turn on them like a savage dog if/when the truth comes out.

I can't wait.

If the Mccanns have been economical with the truth and they know what happened, there will be hell to pay as they not only would have pulled the wool over many peoples eyes but also committed fraud by collecting monies, as well as libel damages and now seeking million euros from the ex police....as well as the uk police having spent what 6 million pound to date on their review and now investigation


Its a tall order to believe they could do this isnt it


The brass neck would have to be one of the biggest in history


Vis a vis the newspapers in general....on a related point....does it really matter what they print, I think most discerning adults do not believe everything they read in the papers or everything they hear on the TV or believe every word any person says in any interview....to say that the papers or mr amarals book or any chat show with guests etc etc, other opinion,were responsible for any suspicion of the mccanns is tantamount to saying every single person reading the story must be a sheep...quite insulting at best
:floorlaugh:

There are so many sources of info, fact and speculation here.....people have the right to make an informed opinion...and thats that

IMO there is FAR too much smoke without fire in is case

 

[Cappuccino]

Could someone explain to me which British publications are reputable and which ones are rags? I believe the Guardian and Times and The Telegraph are reputable but not sure???

The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and I would also trust the BBC as far as accuracy of their news reporting goes.

 

[Clutchbag]

The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and I would also trust the BBC as far as accuracy of their news reporting goes.

Youre kidding me.....the bbc? The good old bbc that posted a picture taken in 2003 of an iraq massacre and passed it off as a 2013 one in syria. Of course!

BBC do good drama, cooking shows, etc but news? No way is it unbiased THOUGH I just say in THIS case they havent given me a problem....the Times have though when they did fawning pieces on the Mccanns....thenthat figures murdoch runs it as he does the sickly lying corrupt sun...both trumpetting the mccanns as saints and victims....

 

[SapphireSteel]

The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and I would also trust the BBC as far as accuracy of their news reporting goes.

:lol:

This is a joke, right?

I have seen each and every one of these "respectable" publications skew the McCann Investigation reporting so it is favourable to the McCann.

Not just a little biased - no, it's blatant sympathy and support. Just read any of them, they speak of the "abduction" as though it is proven fact, and Kate and Gerry as the unluckiest and most saintly parents in the world. :banghead:

Compare the way the McCanns have been written about with (for example) Baby P's mother. She left him alone to be abused while she went out and had a good time, which pretty much amounts to the same parenting style in my opinion. :dunno:

I would (and do) refer a lot to the original PJ report, youtube (lots of stuff there), interviews, also the Portugese newspapers, which had a much freer say about the investigation than the British media seems to.

There are a few excellent blogs around that contain at least links to the information, even if you wish to skip the commentary.

:twocents:

:cow:

 

[Flinders]

I would never leave anyone out of sight or hearing at this age. Did this rich couple have a nanny? The worry of Australian Nannies is wondering why they had children. No bias here that they feed and tuck the little ones in. Did they save money and put their Nanny on holidays and hire a local?

 

[Clutchbag]

I would never leave anyone out of sight or hearing at this age. Did this rich couple have a nanny? The worry of Australian Nannies is wondering why they had children. No bias here that they feed and tuck the little ones in. Did they save money and put their Nanny on holidays and hire a local?

They hired no one.

There was a FREE night time creche which other holiday makers had no problem using

There was a 10 euro an hour nanny for hire to sit in the apartments

They chose to leave them on their own thinking that would be ok as they were close to the apartment...fifty metres as the crow flies but they had no sight or sound and they also expect us to believe they left the back door open