Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

[Cherwell]

Excerpt from above link, translated from Portuguese to English:

"Contradictory statements about the attacks that were targeted were delivered between 2008 and 2009 , during the trial of inspectors who investigated the " Joana case " , which resulted in the conviction of two of the five defendants in the case .

The court gave as proven aggression , although without having ascertained the identity of the attackers .

Gonçalo Amaral , former coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department of the PJ of Portimão , was acquitted of the crime of failure to report and sentenced to a year and a half for the crime of making false allegations , were suspended for the same period .

The inspector António Nunes Cardoso was sentenced to two years and three months for document forgery , on probation for two years .

The former agents of PJ Paulo Pereira Cristovao , Leonel Morgado Marques and Paulo Marques Bom , who were accused of torturing Leonor Cipriano in interrogations conducted in the PJ in Faro , were acquitted ."

Yes, the news article is referring there to the outcome of the earlier trial. It's a recap.

 

[Donjeta]

I think the parents said Madeleine would never do that.. it was not in her nature.. and on the beginning they said they are convinced by the way the apartment was found that she never wandered.
It might be to do with her cuddle cat or with the opened shutter.

Yes, she would not have been likely to tamper with the window. But I think that wandering off in search of parents may very well be a one-off type of situation rather than a pattern with many panicked children and many parents might not know whether their child would leave or not, before they do. I suppose some parents who are in the habit of often leaving the children alone might know from experience what happens but hopefully there was no such habit.

 

[haden]

The blog post is more or less a straight translation of this article

http://www.lux.iol.pt/nacionais/leo...tica-leonor-cipriano-prisao/1435391-4996.html

Perhaps easier for most of us to read than the Portuguese.

I checked on that blog in past, it was full of conspiracy theories, like British government being involved in Madeleines disappearance, someone from the government being there having dinner that night with parents etc..
Not sure these types of theories are my cup of tea :floorlaugh:

 

[Cherwell]

I checked on that blog in past, it was full of conspiracy theories, like British government being involved in Madeleines disappearance, someone from the government being there having dinner that night with parents etc..
Not sure these types of theories are my cup of tea :floorlaugh:

That's as may be, but the link was to a factual newspaper report.

 

[Donjeta]

I checked on that blog in past, it was full of conspiracy theories, like British government being involved in Madeleines disappearance, someone from the government being there having dinner that night with parents etc..
Not sure these types of theories are my cup of tea :floorlaugh:

Not really mine either but it doesn't mean that her translation of a news article can't be helpful for those of us who are not fluent in Portuguese.

 

[Morag]

I've been here (mostly) since the beginning, but there's so much to read from all sources, I'm not sure if I have missed this.

What have the McCanns and their team said about the Smith family's testimony, that they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine's description and that the man's description matched that of the man seen by Jane Tanner?

It would seem that they would have been eager to accept the Smith sighting, as it logically could have been the same man Jane saw. It's only been this week that we learned that the Tanner sighting was irrelevant.

So for years there has been a possibility that the 'abductor' was seen by the Smiths. Was that publicized by the McCanns and their people? If not, why not?

 

[haden]

I've been here (mostly) since the beginning, but there's so much to read from all sources, I'm not sure if I have missed this.

What have the McCanns and their team said about the Smith family's testimony, that they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine's description and that the man's description matched that of the man seen by Jane Tanner?

It would seem that they would have been eager to accept the Smith sighting, as it logically could have been the same man Jane saw. It's only been this week that we learned that the Tanner sighting was irrelevant.

So for years there has been a possibility that the 'abductor' was seen by the Smiths. Was that publicized by the McCanns and their people? If not, why not?

McCanns private detectives contacted Smiths and made the e fit currently being shown..

 

[~n/t~]

McCanns private detectives contacted Smiths and made the e fit currently being shown..

The smiths believe it was Gerry, correct?

 

[BOESP]

Amaral was too busy trying to fit his ONE THEORY blaming the parents to overcome his big ego and look elsewhere--

I understand your opinion but I see the McCanns in the way you say you see Amaral.

Two defenses usually proclaimed the loudest when an individual is rightly a suspect are the SODDI (some other dude did it) and "blame the incompetent police" defenses. This is often followed by intimidation tactics that are post hoc and ad hominem attacks designed to divert attention from, in this case, the McCanns. It doesn't help them appear innocent, imo.

I'd love to hear that the child has been found alive and as well as possible but that seems unlikely.

 

[Donjeta]

Were the Smiths sightings e-fits ever published before now?

 

[~n/t~]

Were the Smiths sightings e-fits ever published before now?

Not that I recall. The ones published don't look anything like the latest e fit

 

[Morag]

McCanns private detectives contacted Smiths and made the e fit currently being shown..

Yes, I know that they did, but that was in 2008. Wouldn't it have been helpful for them at that time to say, "Look, here's the guy-the same guy Jane Tanner saw"? Releasing that drawing at that time might have triggered a better response than waiting 5 years.

 

[Donjeta]

Yes, I know that they did, but that was in 2008. Wouldn't it have been helpful for them at that time to say, "Look, here's the guy-the same guy Jane Tanner saw"? Releasing that drawing at that time might have triggered a better response than waiting 5 years.

If it's our guy and if the Crimewatch viewers recognized him and he'll be arrested shortly it would be a great tragedy to find out that he still had Madeleine in 2008 but that she has since been deceased.

 

[~n/t~]

I'm on an iPad. Wish I knew how to copy and paste fotos. If you google Madeleine McCann efits there are several. None look like the current one

 

[~n/t~]

If it's our guy and if the Crimewatch viewers recognized him and he'll be arrested shortly it would be a great tragedy to find out that he still had Madeleine in 2008 but that she has since been deceased.

Wonder why after all these years they finally decided the smith sighting is credible? Bizarre it wasn't done before

 

[Linda7NJ]

Wonder why after all these years they finally decided the smith sighting is credible? Bizarre it wasn't done before

Everything about this is bizarre.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[~n/t~]

Yes, I know that they did, but that was in 2008. Wouldn't it have been helpful for them at that time to say, "Look, here's the guy-the same guy Jane Tanner saw"? Releasing that drawing at that time might have triggered a better response than waiting 5 years.

I don't think it was the same guy tanner saw

 

[Morag]

I don't think it was the same guy tanner saw

No, of course it wasn't. But the description is quite similar, and it happened the same night in less than an hour's span, and it would be quite logical to assume that they could be the same guy. Now IMHO, Jane's sighting makes no sense because she saw Eggman and she also saw Jez and Gerry, and they saw neither her nor Eggman. I don't even think Eggman existed, I think Jane was giving an alibi for Gerry, and the current Eggman who has been pictured in the news is just an actor pretending to be the non-existent Eggman. And if this is so, then Jane knows it and so does Gerry. I think LE is playing some headgames.

 

[~n/t~]

No, of course it wasn't. But the description is quite similar, and it happened the same night in less than an hour's span, and it would be quite logical to assume that they could be the same guy. Now IMHO, Jane's sighting makes no sense because she saw Eggman and she also saw Jez and Gerry, and they saw neither her nor Eggman. I don't even think Eggman existed, I think Jane was giving an alibi for Gerry, and the current Eggman who has been pictured in the news is just an actor pretending to be the non-existent Eggman. And if this is so, then Jane knows it and so does Gerry. I think LE is playing some headgames.

What about that other efit of the dark haired man carrying the child in his arms? I believe that one evolved from egg man. I could be wrong though

 

[Morag]

What about that other efit of the dark haired man carrying the child in his arms? I believe that one evolved from egg man. I could be wrong though

Yes, it did evolve from Eggman, but didn't have a catchy name for me to use*. They were both based on Tanner's sighting. And that man has allegedly been id'd and was shown wearing similar clothing and standing in the "carrying" position in the article last week (with his face obscured). Hope that last sentence makes sense.

*I could have called him greasy-haired man.