Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

[goldengirl57]

I don't understand what this means.
That SY leaked the info to CdM?
And the journo who wrote it is Amarals friend? What a coincidence!

IF you read the link it was purely a transcript from a programme on the T.V.

Actually you keep saying that about JM but she only puts out stuff on both sides transcribed......

WHAT IT MEANS IS, this information about tractor man has nothing to do with the PJ investigation, as they havent even got their TEAM together yet.

This information was requested by the SY..........and dealt with.

I find it is better to sit on the fence as sometimes by doing that you get information that is worthy. AMARALS book by the way was taken from the police FILES all common knowledge, are we saying that the files are corrupt too....

anyway its pointless in worrying about disgruntled employees and abduction issues, when it isnt coming from the PJ....

FROM THE STAR. LIKE THE FAMILY HAVE SAID THEY HAVENT EVEN BEEN CONTACTED BY THE PJ. This is terrible for the family......to name him is even worse.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/348425/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-was-a-known-criminal

 

[CHERIE.T]

Kate and Gerry were photographed on some sort of bridge. I always felt that is where maddie was put in the ocean. Even if her little body washed up, I think it would have been very difficult to implicate anyone. Water washes away any DNA fingerprints etc. I remember this from Celina Cass case and another I can't remember offhand. Celina's case remains unsolved even though everyone suspects the 23 year old who lived there


I'll look for links to try backing up my statement

Not in all cases. Laci Peterson's body washed up approx 4 months after she disappeared. Her remains were identified...not by teeth compared to an xray,because her head was missing. She was identified by DNA.
Reference police one.com April 8, 2003

 

[Estelle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gord View Post
Complete rubbish - spinal fluid !!

The FSS statements and emails have been posted here many times

The DNA fragments were inconclusive as to who let alone what it was - there was no smoking gun !!

If the police had found spinal fluid they would doing porridge in some Lisbon nick by now
I know. I just wondered if anyone would actually try to validate that ridiculous statement!

I know I read about the spinal fluid it in the PJ Files which you can look up if you want. Otherwise, I found this article. Many press reports form 2007 have been removed from the internet which incriminate the McCanns. But I found this report:

"We have read in press reports both that "corpse fluids" were found on a piece of carpeting in the Renault Scenic, and that a sample of blood determined to be Madeleine's was also found there. At this point we are prisoners of the press, as with so many other things in this case, and do not know which (if either) is correct. SirPrize has written, and I wholeheartedly agree, that any blood found in the boot of the Scenic would have been there as the result of transfer from an item that was bled on whilst Madeleine was alive or very shortly after her death. For example, if Madeleine had died of some injury that caused her to bleed and her body had been wrapped in a towel or sheet, and that item had then been transported in the Scenic, blood could have been transferred to the boot of the car. Her body would not still have been xxxxxxxx 20 days after she died.

The "corpse fluids" mentioned above could also have been transferred to the Scenic in this manner, or directly from Madeleine's body. Any post-mortem fluids, however, would be likely to occur in smaller quantity than blood from a xxxxxxxx wound serious enough to kill a child. Therefore, as SirPrize has pointed out, the presence of either blood or corpse fluids in the Scenic would not require that Madeleine's body itself had been transported in the car; she could have been buried or disposed of someplace and items that had been in contact with her bloody or dead body could have been carried in the car at some point. "

http://truthformadeleine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28&start=30

 

[CHERIE.T]

The longer the item is submerged, the less chance you have of recovering any prints. However, if the print is protected in some way from direct water exposure, the print will maintain its structure longer than one exposed to the ambient water, where the friction created by direct water contact will wash away the print much faster. Water is an excellent solvent. This is illustrated by the contrast between the prints left on the inside rearview mirror of an automobile and the prints left on the sideview mirror mounted on the exterior of the driver's door. The prints on the inside mirror would be protected from moving water and therefore last longer.

Remember - Given enough time, water will even dissolve glass.

http://www.ucidiver.com/fingerprints.html

Distilled water dissolves glass. Tab water will not.

 

[goldengirl57]

HERES A COINCIDENCE FOR YOU, something to make you think about.

The maintenance man has the same surname as the tractor man.

Now muhhhaaawwwaaaaaa was he sacked too, shock could we have the wrong guy lol.....

Also the cook has the same surname.

THE PLOT THICKENS like a nice bowl of thick vegetable soup.

 

[Veidt]

[\secret voice on] Is that hatch/door still in use or is it now permanently sealed (it looks like it)? What could be behind it and how much room is there to hide any(body)?[\secret voice off]

Snipped. It just looks like one of those hatches with electrical or water equipment inside not a storage hatch. IMO if she had been hidden there the dogs would also have picked up the scent as IIRC they followed the trail outside the Club so they would have signalled something there - it being a storage area where she would have been for at least some time there would be a strong scent.

It also seems like a bad location to hide a child. Once LE was called there would be police coming and going through the entrance. It's a spot that is easily visible from surrounding houses and anyone coming or going into the club could come across it.

I'm sorry but if Madeleine was hidden away by an abductor I don't believe that spot is it.

If TractorMan did it (which I find very unlikely as I said but anyway), he would've left some sort of evidence like clothing fibres or hair.

If only his phone was in the area, that's not good enough for me as many phones would be in the area. Does anyone know if he was an ex-employee, or a disgruntled ex-employee?

In all honesty I think the abductor is more likely than TractorMan and I don't think it was an abductor at all.

I agree, I don't think he did it because he doesn't sound like an experienced abductor. If there was an abductor I'd be more inclined to think it was someone who had planned it all along or knew what they were doing, not just a spiteful employee... someone acting out of spite with no previous interest or experience in kidnapping would have a harder time covering their tracks.

<modsnip>

He may not have been carrying a phone. It's not compulsory!

From what I understand the reason why the tabloid picked up on him is that he was also placed at the club around the time Madeleine went missing through pings, wasn't he?

 

[Veidt]

Sorry for the double post but I wanted to elaborate on why I don't think a disgruntled former employee or employees conspired to kidnap Maddie as revenge.

Let's contemplate the external abductor (not the McCanns or a member of the Tapas group) for a moment, even if you don't agree with the theory.

An external abductor who could have taken Madeleine would be very good (or very lucky) at covering his or her tracks. As far as I know there was no identifiable vestiges of an abductor. No hair, no fingerprints, no clothing fibers. The average person would know about fingerprints and worn gloves but IMO would have been less in the know about hair and clothing.

Whoever did this was, again, very premeditated - or very 'lucky' - when choosing the opportunity to strike. Someone has pointed out before that it's strange that an abductor who was watching wouldn't kidnap Madeleine immediately after she was left alone with the twins.

In my opinion there could be an explanation - either the abductor wanted to make sure they wouldn't go back to get something they forgot or wanted to see if they would check on the children and at what intervals, or they weren't actively watching and it took them a while to notice the children were alone.

Either way IMO this points to someone who was at least keeping an eye on the family.

Someone who knew nothing about the family would be running many risks. For all a random person knew, the house could be empty. Even if they noticed the checks they would have no way of knowing who was inside. It could be kids watched by a nanny but with very cautious parents, babies who could cry, older children, teenagers, an elderly person whose health required checks to make sure they were well and not getting into accidents. Even an adult with sunstroke.

Then sneaking into the house would have had risks of its own, since for all that person knew one of the adults could have decided to check earlier than planned or belatedly realize they had forgotten something, heard one of the children crying, any number of things... a passerby could have ruined their plans.

A disgruntled employee with no previous interest in kidnapping children would have to be very more than just disgruntled to do this. It would involve careful planning, knowledge of how to cover up their tracks and being willing to run the risk of getting caught - which would ruin their purpose entirely and ruin their chances of employment FOREVER.

IMO it would be more likely for a disgruntled employee to look out for children playing alone outside or at least to be much less clever about the whole plan.

I believe that what we know indicates that if there was an external abductor, this person already had something of an interest in kidnapping children and perhaps had thought about it often before, and wanted to take Madeleine and not just any child.

:twocents:

 

[haden]

I put a link up about this but no one seems to have seen it so i will do it again.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/maddie-case-pj-has-already-carried-out.html

This article is transcribed so we can understand it. The most important part is this:

A Judiciary Police team has not yet been constituted to work in the process since it was reopened by the Public Ministry, that is, the official PJ investigation to the Maddie case has not yet been resumed.

I believe this ex gruntled employee is the same one that someone sent an email to our Prince Charles about. If all they have on him is a ping off his phone in the location of PDL then for gods sake......he only lived 15 minutes from PDL. I live 15 minutes from my local town so shoot me.

Also i have read from a good source that the widow of this guy is totally freaking out and is now suing everyone who has defamed her husbands name.

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

Don't you see, Joana Morais tries to manipulate the reader into 'us and them' mode

So the PJ team which works with SY is not longer 'us'
They are 'the enemy'
Why the lead coming from the Scotland Yard should not be trusted?
Because Joana Morais believes there is some kind of an establishment cover up which Scotland Yards is helping and now the PJ team working with them too.
Oh, c'mon who of their healthy mind would believe this? Stinks of conspiracy theory!

 

[Redgoblin]

The rule I use is if it's more convoluted, it's probably bs. Simple is always better.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[haden]

Sorry for the double post but I wanted to elaborate on why I don't think a disgruntled former employee or employees conspired to kidnap Maddie as revenge.

Let's contemplate the external abductor (not the McCanns or a member of the Tapas group) for a moment, even if you don't agree with the theory.

An external abductor who could have taken Madeleine would be very good (or very lucky) at covering his or her tracks. As far as I know there was no identifiable vestiges of an abductor. No hair, no fingerprints, no clothing fibers. The average person would know about fingerprints and worn gloves but IMO would have been less in the know about hair and clothing.

Whoever did this was, again, very premeditated - or very 'lucky' - when choosing the opportunity to strike. Someone has pointed out before that it's strange that an abductor who was watching wouldn't kidnap Madeleine immediately after she was left alone with the twins.

In my opinion there could be an explanation - either the abductor wanted to make sure they wouldn't go back to get something they forgot or wanted to see if they would check on the children and at what intervals, or they weren't actively watching and it took them a while to notice the children were alone.

Either way IMO this points to someone who was at least keeping an eye on the family.

Someone who knew nothing about the family would be running many risks. For all a random person knew, the house could be empty. Even if they noticed the checks they would have no way of knowing who was inside. It could be kids watched by a nanny but with very cautious parents, babies who could cry, older children, teenagers, an elderly person whose health required checks to make sure they were well and not getting into accidents. Even an adult with sunstroke.

Then sneaking into the house would have had risks of its own, since for all that person knew one of the adults could have decided to check earlier than planned or belatedly realize they had forgotten something, heard one of the children crying, any number of things... a passerby could have ruined their plans.

A disgruntled employee with no previous interest in kidnapping children would have to be very more than just disgruntled to do this. It would involve careful planning, knowledge of how to cover up their tracks and being willing to run the risk of getting caught - which would ruin their purpose entirely and ruin their chances of employment FOREVER.

IMO it would be more likely for a disgruntled employee to look out for children playing alone outside or at least to be much less clever about the whole plan.

I believe that what we know indicates that if there was an external abductor, this person already had something of an interest in kidnapping children and perhaps had thought about it often before, and wanted to take Madeleine and not just any child.

:twocents:

I don't believe in this theory either. But if this employee had some kind of a different mind set up, like mental health problem or comes from the places where there is a 'grudge must be revenged' traditional rule, like in rural Turkey where the personal honour or honour of the family is the main thing, or for example or Albania, they have this thing, Albanians call it 'besa', when someone angers them with something unfair they give 'besa' that they will put things right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_(Albanian_culture)
I am not saying that this has happened but I am saying that people are different...

 

[~n/t~]

Sorry for the double post but I wanted to elaborate on why I don't think a disgruntled former employee or employees conspired to kidnap Maddie as revenge.

Let's contemplate the external abductor (not the McCanns or a member of the Tapas group) for a moment, even if you don't agree with the theory.

An external abductor who could have taken Madeleine would be very good (or very lucky) at covering his or her tracks. As far as I know there was no identifiable vestiges of an abductor. No hair, no fingerprints, no clothing fibers. The average person would know about fingerprints and worn gloves but IMO would have been less in the know about hair and clothing.

Whoever did this was, again, very premeditated - or very 'lucky' - when choosing the opportunity to strike. Someone has pointed out before that it's strange that an abductor who was watching wouldn't kidnap Madeleine immediately after she was left alone with the twins.

In my opinion there could be an explanation - either the abductor wanted to make sure they wouldn't go back to get something they forgot or wanted to see if they would check on the children and at what intervals, or they weren't actively watching and it took them a while to notice the children were alone.

Either way IMO this points to someone who was at least keeping an eye on the family.

Someone who knew nothing about the family would be running many risks. For all a random person knew, the house could be empty. Even if they noticed the checks they would have no way of knowing who was inside. It could be kids watched by a nanny but with very cautious parents, babies who could cry, older children, teenagers, an elderly person whose health required checks to make sure they were well and not getting into accidents. Even an adult with sunstroke.

Then sneaking into the house would have had risks of its own, since for all that person knew one of the adults could have decided to check earlier than planned or belatedly realize they had forgotten something, heard one of the children crying, any number of things... a passerby could have ruined their plans.

A disgruntled employee with no previous interest in kidnapping children would have to be very more than just disgruntled to do this. It would involve careful planning, knowledge of how to cover up their tracks and being willing to run the risk of getting caught - which would ruin their purpose entirely and ruin their chances of employment FOREVER.

IMO it would be more likely for a disgruntled employee to look out for children playing alone outside or at least to be much less clever about the whole plan.

I believe that what we know indicates that if there was an external abductor, this person already had something of an interest in kidnapping children and perhaps had thought about it often before, and wanted to take Madeleine and not just any child.

:twocents:

Who did the McCanns befriend in PDL? Just going with your theory. Perhaps either the McCanns or one of the Tapas friends shot their mouth too much at someone they thought they they trusted and told them about leaving the kids alone at night? Perhaps the person wasn't even a local but a tourist with an obsession with little girls madeleines age. The person may have been to PDL before and knew the place well.

 

[~n/t~]

The rule I use is if it's more convoluted, it's probably bs. Simple is always better.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Agree.

 

[haden]

Who did the McCanns befriend in PDL? Just going with your theory. Perhaps either the McCanns or one of the Tapas friends shot their mouth too much at someone they thought they they trusted and told them about leaving the kids alone at night? Perhaps the person wasn't even a local but a tourist with an obsession with little girls madeleines age. The person may have been to PDL before and knew the place well.

The whole street knew the kids were alone. They were crying loudly for long time on May 1 ( according to Mrs Fenns statement) and she also called a friend that night to tell her friend who lives locally so possibly the friend told 'another friend' that Mrs Fenn called.. The OC bar staff knew it too and probably the many other neighbours heard it too..

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

 

[~n/t~]

Abducting the employer's child would be pretty powerful.
Just wondering what do you see as an easier way to get back at the employer? :moo:

Abducting the employers kid would have made more sense. Arson comes to mind.

 

[goldengirl57]

Don't you see, Joana Morais tries to manipulate the reader into 'us and them' mode

So the PJ team which works with SY is not longer 'us'
They are 'the enemy'
Why the lead coming from the Scotland Yard should not be trusted?
Because Joana Morais believes there is some kind of an establishment cover up which Scotland Yards is helping and now the PJ team working with them too.
Oh, c'mon who of their healthy mind would believe this? Stinks of conspiracy theory!

LOL....no she doesnt I am 62 years old far to wise to be manipulated by anyone. My grandkids fail lol and they are experts at it.

This is transcribed from a T.V. programme lol.

I think some people are brainwashed where the McCanns are concerned.

What conspiracy theory?

All she is saying is this piece about the tractor guy was in the rogatory letters to SY.

Its funny isnt it that the PJ have not CONTACTED the family of the tractor man....which would mean that they personally are not interested.

YET.

I think we all need to wear those silver hats to stop rays from infiltrating and brain washing us lol....

 

[~n/t~]

The whole street knew the kids were alone. They were crying loudly for long time on May 1 ( according to Mrs Fenns statement) and she also called a friend that night to tell her friend who lives locally so possibly the friend told 'another friend' that Mrs Fenn called.. The OC bar staff knew it too and probably the many other neighbours heard it too..

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

Right. But I believe this person would have befriended the tapas group well enough to know when to strike. Heck it may even have been that same night or previous nights.

 

[haden]

Today's CdM translation..

ALERT: BAD TABLOID


Correio da Manhã


1 November 2013

Profile led PJ to the abductor of Maddie

The immigrant also showed agressive traits and suspicious behaviour towards children.
The suspect's family refuses to collaborate.

Eduardo Dâmaso/Tânia Laranjo/Ana Isabel Fonseca

An aggressive and conflictual personality and suspicious behaviour towards children led the PJ investigation to the Cabo Verde immigrant, indicated in the abduction and murder of Maddie.

The PJ inspectors, who studied the case and led to it's recent reopening, elaborated a profile of the suspect - who died in 2009 at 40 - and concluded that the traits presented give more strength to the possibility that he was the author of the crime. The PJ, also, had done the same in 2007, when Robert Murat had been made "arguido". The profile had been made with the help of two British criminologists and indicated that the luso-british could be responsible for the disappearance.

As for the Cabo Verde immigrant now being investigated, he had a past marked some violent episodes. He was also involved in a labour conflict, having left in a dispute. This is what happened in the Ocean Clube resort, in Praia da Luz, in Lagos, where the suspect worked. He lost his job a short time before the girl disappeared, 3 May 2007.

The PJ has, during the last few days, attempted to reconstruct the last steps of the suspect and to try to find the places where he could have hidden Madeleine's body, who was 4 at the time of the disappearance. The suspect's family has not collaborated with the PJ, which has hindered the investigation. The wife has not offered any leads as to the last years of the life of her companion. The suspect had a record for theft. In 1996, he received a pardon from the President Jorge Sampaio and was not thrown out of the country.

The Family admits suing for defamation

The family of the man who is suspected of abducting Maddie, has already admitted suing the state, for offense against a deceased person. The wife, who refused to speak to CM, is supposed to have already contacted a lawyer in order to go ahead with a complaint for offenses to the memory of a deceased person. This complaint could come up against the fact that the PJ is only studying one line of investigation, which had already happened in the past. Robert Murat, for example, who had been made arguido, was never compensated for the damages suffered because of the investigation. It would be difficult in the Portuguese judicial system for the widow to prove this, although the closest relatives speak of an enormous "shame" felt by the widow and son.

 

[goldengirl57]

The whole street knew the kids were alone. They were crying loudly for long time on May 1 ( according to Mrs Fenns statement) and she also called a friend that night to tell her friend who lives locally so possibly the friend told 'another friend' that Mrs Fenn called.. The OC bar staff knew it too and probably the many other neighbours heard it too..

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

She denied EVER saying that...it is in the files, not Joana Morais I hasten to add but the real ones.....:blushing:

 

[goldengirl57]

Today's CdM translation..

Correio da Manhã


1 November 2013

Profile led PJ to the abductor of Maddie

The immigrant also showed agressive traits and suspicious behaviour towards children.
The suspect's family refuses to collaborate.

Eduardo Dâmaso/Tânia Laranjo/Ana Isabel Fonseca

An aggressive and conflictual personality and suspicious behaviour towards children led the PJ investigation to the Cabo Verde immigrant, indicated in the abduction and murder of Maddie.

The PJ inspectors, who studied the case and led to it's recent reopening, elaborated a profile of the suspect - who died in 2009 at 40 - and concluded that the traits presented give more strength to the possibility that he was the author of the crime. The PJ, also, had done the same in 2007, when Robert Murat had been made "arguido". The profile had been made with the help of two British criminologists and indicated that the luso-british could be responsible for the disappearance.

As for the Cabo Verde immigrant now being investigated, he had a past marked some violent episodes. He was also involved in a labour conflict, having left in a dispute. This is what happened in the Ocean Clube resort, in Praia da Luz, in Lagos, where the suspect worked. He lost his job a short time before the girl disappeared, 3 May 2007.

The PJ has, during the last few days, attempted to reconstruct the last steps of the suspect and to try to find the places where he could have hidden Madeleine's body, who was 4 at the time of the disappearance. The suspect's family has not collaborated with the PJ, which has hindered the investigation. The wife has not offered any leads as to the last years of the life of her companion. The suspect had a record for theft. In 1996, he received a pardon from the President Jorge Sampaio and was not thrown out of the country.

The Family admits suing for defamation

The family of the man who is suspected of abducting Maddie, has already admitted suing the state, for offense against a deceased person. The wife, who refused to speak to CM, is supposed to have already contacted a lawyer in order to go ahead with a complaint for offenses to the memory of a deceased person. This complaint could come up against the fact that the PJ is only studying one line of investigation, which had already happened in the past. Robert Murat, for example, who had been made arguido, was never compensated for the damages suffered because of the investigation. It would be difficult in the Portuguese judicial system for the widow to prove this, although the closest relatives speak of an enormous "shame" felt by the widow and son.

So you believe the Cdm, but not JM who would actually simply translate that information ....

Also i mentioned yesterday the widow was suing.

This is all supposition, and not coming from PJ, they are swore to secracy....

Cm is just another Star, or mirror......

 

[haden]

If the cook lady is related to any of the two guys and she was not at work the day after, then she needs to be questioned again. Just to clarify again.
I hope she is not 'the widow'.

I remember one of the first questions in the forums back in 2007 was 'has anyone missed the work the day after?'