Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[fabgod]

How is a timeline based on what people outside of the tapas nine (i.e other guests and staff) the mccann timeline? I have purposely not put in anything that cannot be backed up by other people.

If we are going to look at a timeline that is what we need to do, start with people outside the tapas nine. then look at what the tapas nine say, and look at the scenario here they are lying. Why would they lie, when was the lie arranged, where was it arranged, who benefits from it etc. For instance if david payne is lying then it indicates that soemthign had happened to madeleine between five thirty and six. That seriously narrows the timeline, and then the statements of those on the court yard need to be gone over again - did they see david and gerry talking together away from the others etc? It is not enough to just discount people, that tells us nothing, but looking at what they tell us narrows windows and helps us to either accept their statement or discount it.

Brit 1981
Please, feel free to keep commenting on my posts if you wish.
I will not be responding to any of your posts from this point as I do not want to incur the wrath of the Moderators on here.
My posts have been flagged up twice, (the only two times I hasten to add)
both times regarding posts made by yourself.
I think it is better to take it from this point that we do not share the same beliefs

 

[fabgod]

Just reading about another of the McCanns investigators who has been in prison for over 4 years and a thought struck me.
There may have been various attempts at closure over the past 5 and a bit years.

We had the whole Murat thing and the tapas friends accusing him
Also the De Telegraaf incident
The lawyer and the bones at the Dam

The McCanns asking Danie Kruger to look for a body when they gave him hair for his "machine"
"actually that makes me laugh, they ask a South african over who had "invented" a machine that finds dead bodies, yet another South African turns up with a real ground penetrating radar and he is a fool or something? or is he?

We also had Kates dream where she saw Madeleine on a hillside and told the police

Then we have the aforementioned Stephen Birch Body in Murats back yard.

If you can think of more please feel free to add.

I was wondering, would it make sense that a body should have turned up at some point and hasn't.
I have been thinking that the PJ were stupid to miss the chance to have a look at Murats just in case, but what if they are playing it from the other side?
In that they won't look because they don't want a body to be found, they could be sure they know what really happened, they could be sure from their records that no body was at that location at the time, therefore they would know it was planted to be found, maybe Birch is another attempt by someone to bring an end and point the finger somewhere else?

 

[SapphireSteel]

hate to be the one to break it to you, but the timeline above is actually based on people other than the tapas nine.

people other than the tapas nine saw madeleine at high tea at five thirty.

people other than the tapas nine saw gerry at tennis from six to seven thirty.

people other than the tapas nine saw david leave the tennis courts

people other than the tapas nien saw what was happening on the tennis courts.

people other than the tapas nine saw kate and gerry at the tapas bar at eight thirty.

None of this has been queried?

We know the last time Madeleine was seen alive by an independant witness was 5.30.

The discovery of her "abduction" occurred at 10 pm.

That leaves 4.5 hours unaccounted for...plenty of time to hide a tiny body.

 

[orora]

The McCanns asking Danie Kruger to look for a body when they gave him hair for his "machine"
"actually that makes me laugh, they ask a South african over who had "invented" a machine that finds dead bodies, yet another South African turns up with a real ground penetrating radar and he is a fool or something? or is he?

I won't go into what some of this may mean but.. fyi
This illusion, bs, brainwashing tool substitute for a proper investigation aimed at an uneducated public has been used before elsewhere.
In Canada back in 1994 a search and rescue worker found a little girlws body. He claimed to be using a similar machine that he had invented himself. A lock of hair was provided him by the lead investigator. A psychic claimed to have provided the dscription of the general area. Success she was found by the machine!

In reality the perpetrator of that crime was an RCMP agent and the lead investigator was the "handler. " The search and rescue worker found the body as directed and forensic workers described red ribbon attached to the tree above the body being there to catch his attention. It was a set up. The RCMP arrested the man last seen with the girl but he was still acquitted after the RCMP got caught washing the dna evidence from the little girls clothes.

By the way, 13 members of Scotland yard showed up at the scene within weeks of the crime. The Prime Minister had showed up the day after. SY has never been there before or since. Some of the strangest things went on with that case maybe the least of which was the body finding device. Head shaking moments.. On the road to enlightenment one encounters many obstacles, the biggest being ones own self.
News story-
http://www.mindytran.com/Bodyfindingdevice.jpg
info found at - mindytran.com-
http://www.mindytran.com/RCMPinvestigation.htm

 

[SapphireSteel]

I keep getting my posts wiped when i respond with facts that can be proven, so rather than risk a ban, I will ignore certain posts. :rocker:

I hate that...!

 

[fabgod]

I hate that...!

never mind, I will get over it lol

Anyway 4.5 hours, hypothetically speaking, who by and where?

 

[fabgod]

I won't go into what some of this may mean but.. fyi
This illusion, bs, brainwashing tool substitute for a proper investigation aimed at an uneducated public has been used before elsewhere.
In Canada back in 1994 a search and rescue worker found a little girlws body. He claimed to be using a similar machine that he had invented himself. A lock of hair was provided him by the lead investigator. A psychic claimed to have provided the dscription of the general area. Success she was found by the machine!

In reality the perpetrator of that crime was an RCMP agent and the lead investigator was the "handler. " The search and rescue worker found the body as directed and forensic workers described red ribbon attached to the tree above the body being there to catch his attention. It was a set up. The RCMP arrested the man last seen with the girl but he was still acquitted after the RCMP got caught washing the dna evidence from the little girls clothes.

By the way, 13 members of Scotland yard showed up at the scene within weeks of the crime. The Prime Minister had showed up the day after. SY has never been there before or since. Some of the strangest things went on with that case maybe the least of which was the body finding device. Head shaking moments.. On the road to enlightenment one encounters many obstacles, the biggest being ones own self.
News story-
http://www.mindytran.com/Bodyfindingdevice.jpg
info found at - mindytran.com-
http://www.mindytran.com/RCMPinvestigation.htm

Head is mashed now, I will have to study this one for a while, thanks!

 

[SapphireSteel]

Personally I try to follow the KISS principle when discussing cases like these.

If you pare back all the conspiracy theories you have this -

Unnaturally cold and dismissive parents
A missing child
An apparent determination to "set the scene" as an abduction
Cadaver dog alerts where there SHOULDN'T BE ANY
Possible DNA from Madeleine where there SHOULDN'T BE ANY
Zero physical evidence of an intruder - highly unlikely in itself
Changing stories by "witnesses"
Both parents were away from the main party for extended periods of time (see Gerry and his "intense" conversation with Jeremy Wilkins in the street)
The fact that people were virtually prowling all over the town on foot, yet saw NOTHING, including a potential abduction vehicle
The fact that the Irish family identified GERRY as the person they saw carrying a small child

Those are the facts. Under KISS, blind Freddy can see what has occurred here.

 

[fabgod]

Personally I try to follow the KISS principle when discussing cases like these.

If you pare back all the conspiracy theories you have this -

Unnaturally cold and dismissive parents
A missing child
An apparent determination to "set the scene" as an abduction
Cadaver dog alerts where there SHOULDN'T BE ANY
Possible DNA from Madeleine where there SHOULDN'T BE ANY
Zero physical evidence of an intruder - highly unlikely in itself
Changing stories by "witnesses"
Both parents were away from the main party for extended periods of time (see Gerry and his "intense" conversation with Jeremy Wilkins in the street)
The fact that people were virtually prowling all over the town on foot, yet saw NOTHING, including a potential abduction vehicle
The fact that the Irish family identified GERRY as the person they saw carrying a small child

Those are the facts. Under KISS, blind Freddy can see what has occurred here.

For a minute there, I thought you were going to throw on the make up and blast out Rock n Roll all nite! Maybe on another forum eh?

When you put it that way,
it pretty much sells itself doesn't it?

Anyone who questions the official line, is wrong and vile and vindictive but in truth, there isn't one single piece of evidence that shows an abductor entered the apartment and took Madeleine, not one.

All the fire fighting is to cover the problems faced by the last people to see her alive and when placed alongside other alarm bell ringing statements and actions or inactions (physically searching) It all points logically one way.

The PJ are idiots, the Dogs are lying, Witnesses who don;t toe the line are disregarded an so on.

 

[brit1981]

No cadaver dog was used in the search for madeleine. A recovery dog was used, and this dog was according to its handler trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as bodies.

One cannot say it is possible that her DNA was found as if this is suspicious, because it is more likely it was not her DNA. Only components were identified, and even if 100% of those shared by madeleine were found it is not indicitive of anything as it was found in a mixed sample in a location where her parents and other relatives were present, and so all of her components were present via their DNA.

The smith family never identified Gerry. All but one of those questioned said they could not identify the individuels, and one said he could not identify the individuel, but from the way he held his body he said some weeks later that he thought there was a possibility it was Gerry, but he said he could not be at all sure, it was dark, he did not have his glasses and he could not identify his face. The PJ did investigate this and found several witnesses inc. guests and staff put Gerry at the complex at this time.

neither parent were away from the party for an extended period of time from eight thirty. gerry was away for fifteen minutes at absolute most, but for most of that a witness outside of the tapas nine states he was with Gerry. Kate was away for five minutes at most just before she raised the alarm.

There does not seem to be any setting of the scene.

What evidence of an intruder should be left? There was none left in the other flats that were intruded into. There was no need for physically forcing anything. Unidentified fingerprints were found on the sill, so for all anyone knows these came from an intruder.

The parents were not unnaturally cold or dismissive, and besides which that is subjective.

The witnesses have not changed their stories.

How do we know that no-one saw a vehicle in the town. I would not think anything of it if I saw a car driving along. And the fact no-one saw anything can also be applied ot the mmcanns, sometime between five thirty and eight thirty they had to get rid of a body, noting that it was daylight during this times lot and not one person saw anything.

So all in all, the only thing we know for certain is that there is a missing child.

There are also not four and a half hours unaccounted for. Non tapas nine witnesses can account for gerry between six and seven thirty, and can account for gerry and kate between eight thirty and ten aside from each of them for five minutes at different times. If this is not true it means people outside of the tapas nine are lying for them, and I do not think this is realistic.

 

[MissJames]

I think there's plenty of evidence that tracking dogs work .This is just for starters. I just wish they could have found a live Madeleine that night.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/09/police_dogs_are_sought-after_c.html

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2006/working-dogs/index.html

http://4pawsforability.org/autism-assistance-dog/

 

[brit1981]

missjames,
They did use tracking dogs on the night madeleine disappeared which followed madeleine's scent out to a parking area I believe (may need to double check the actual location in the files yourself though). But the dogs used later were a dog used to trace blood, and a recovery dog which was trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as whole bodies according to the handler. The idea is they are used to actually recover the victim (hence the name) so so long as they find the perosn it does not matter if they alert to bodily fluids too. however they are not meant to be used as evidence of a body once being there, so when this is attempted the fact they alert to bodily fluids becomes a real issue.
people have questioned if the dogs do alert to such tiny amoutn of blood and bodily fluids then why did they not alert in other places. Obviously we cannot say that, only the handlers and those that know the history of the other locations can. But as the handler says in his report to the PJ the recovery dog will alert to bodily fluids I see no reason to doubt him, nor do I see how we can pick and choose when he is correct about his dogs and when he is not.

 

[SapphireSteel]

missjames,
They did use tracking dogs on the night madeleine disappeared which followed madeleine's scent out to a parking area I believe (may need to double check the actual location in the files yourself though). But the dogs used later were a dog used to trace blood, and a recovery dog which was trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as whole bodies according to the handler. The idea is they are used to actually recover the victim (hence the name) so so long as they find the perosn it does not matter if they alert to bodily fluids too. however they are not meant to be used as evidence of a body once being there, so when this is attempted the fact they alert to bodily fluids becomes a real issue.
people have questioned if the dogs do alert to such tiny amoutn of blood and bodily fluids then why did they not alert in other places. Obviously we cannot say that, only the handlers and those that know the history of the other locations can. But as the handler says in his report to the PJ the recovery dog will alert to bodily fluids I see no reason to doubt him, nor do I see how we can pick and choose when he is correct about his dogs and when he is not.

The fact that the dogs alerted to areas which were later tested and found POSITIVE for DNA from Madeleine (or close family) is just a coincidence then?

The cadaver dog alerted to the "scent of death" in one apartment only, 5a.

How can this be explained?

 

[orora]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SapphireSteel
Personally I try to follow the KISS principle when discussing cases like these.

If you pare back all the conspiracy theories you have this -

Unnaturally cold and dismissive parents
A missing child
An apparent determination to "set the scene" as an abduction
Cadaver dog alerts where there SHOULDN'T BE ANY
Possible DNA from Madeleine where there SHOULDN'T BE ANY
Zero physical evidence of an intruder - highly unlikely in itself
Changing stories by "witnesses"
Both parents were away from the main party for extended periods of time (see Gerry and his "intense" conversation with Jeremy Wilkins in the street)
The fact that people were virtually prowling all over the town on foot, yet saw NOTHING, including a potential abduction vehicle
The fact that the Irish family identified GERRY as the person they saw carrying a small child

Those are the facts. Under KISS, blind Freddy can see what has occurred here.

For a minute there, I thought you were going to throw on the make up and blast out Rock n Roll all nite! Maybe on another forum eh?

When you put it that way,
it pretty much sells itself doesn't it?

Anyone who questions the official line, is wrong and vile and vindictive but in truth, there isn't one single piece of evidence that shows an abductor entered the apartment and took Madeleine, not one.

All the fire fighting is to cover the problems faced by the last people to see her alive and when placed alongside other alarm bell ringing statements and actions or inactions (physically searching) It all points logically one way.

The PJ are idiots, the Dogs are lying, Witnesses who don;t toe the line are disregarded an so on.

Nice little synopsis. I like the differentiation between the initial incident and later investigative / cover actions.

Scotland Yard should come to the same conclusion then and see through all the chaff? They wouldn't be part of a cover just for Gerry would they? Is Gerry a someone or something special beyond what we know? Could there be some unofficial secreted policy protecting these people for any reason if they indeed just acted alone? Maybe even if just to cover an accidental death? How much pull do these people have on their own to orchestrate stage and otherwise bring about what we see? From one end of the spectrum to the other .. All with maybe a half days lead time to prepare?

The thing about even mentioning the c word, (conspiracy) is that it sends all the people who like to be seen as normal, scrambling for the exit or for a pulpit to declare their normalacy. Most wouldn't know a conspiracy as such if it bit them. A plan is a conspiracy, acted out becomes fact. Fact can be backtracked to its origins, fact can indicate a conspiracy.

For some it's as if anything more complex than ones own brain can enertain at whatever iq level that should be, is the determinant factor for the cutoff point between complexity and conspiracy.

Those first to jump up and play the conspiracy card are likely least equipped for any in depth analysis imo. If you find yourself doing that as first reaction, pause a moment and ask why. I sometimes throw out a little bait and I am sometimes quite surprised.

We are all different and all are necessary ingredients to any real discussion. Those who have the best grasp and post the most in depth of facts are not always those with the best interpretations. Did you know that mensa has a group that analyses cases that meet certain criteria. Cold cases can be submitted for discussion. They seldom publish their results but will confer with Law enforcement. What is labelled as conspiracy in many a public discussion is often entertained in the process of elimination there. Facts tell stories, people interpret. Conspiracy here is just another word for complexity there.

No I am not a mensa member, I can't blow that horn, but I receive what I consider to be reliable information from a family member who is. I have often wondered what they would make of this. The timeline and witness stories almost serving as a live shot. The events of the abduction and the events of the investigation/ coverup almost denoting two very different and separate entities each telling they're own story.

Somehow it all fits together. If it were simple, it would have been solved by now. jmo

 

[SapphireSteel]

Nice little synopsis. I like the differentiation between the initial incident and later investigative / cover actions.

Scotland Yard should come to the same conclusion then and see through all the chaff? They wouldn't be part of a cover just for Gerry would they? Is Gerry a someone or something special beyond what we know? Could there be some unofficial secreted policy protecting these people for any reason if they indeed just acted alone? Maybe even if just to cover an accidental death? How much pull do these people have on their own to orchestrate stage and otherwise bring about what we see? From one end of the spectrum to the other .. All with maybe a half days lead time to prepare?

The thing about even mentioning the c word, (conspiracy) is that it sends all the people who like to be seen as normal, scrambling for the exit or for a pulpit to declare their normalacy. Most wouldn't know a conspiracy as such if it bit them. A plan is a conspiracy, acted out becomes fact. Fact can be backtracked to its origins, fact can indicate a conspiracy.

For some it's as if anything more complex than ones own brain can enertain at whatever iq level that should be, is the determinant factor for the cutoff point between complexity and conspiracy.

Those first to jump up and play the conspiracy card are likely least equipped for any in depth analysis imo. If you find yourself doing that as first reaction, pause a moment and ask why. I sometimes throw out a little bait and I am sometimes quite surprised.

We are all different and all are necessary ingredients to any real discussion. Those who have the best grasp and post the most in depth of facts are not always those with the best interpretations. Did you know that mensa has a group that analyses cases that meet certain criteria. Cold cases can be submitted for discussion. They seldom publish their results but will confer with Law enforcement. What is labelled as conspiracy in many a public discussion is often entertained in the process of elimination there. Facts tell stories, people interpret. Conspiracy here is just another word for complexity there.

No I am not a mensa member, I can't blow that horn, but I receive what I consider to be reliable information from a family member who is. I have often wondered what they would make of this. The timeline and witness stories almost serving as a live shot. The events of the abduction and the events of the investigation/ coverup almost denoting two very different and separate entities each telling they're own story.

Somehow it all fits together. If it were simple, it would have been solved by now. jmo

"solved" and "prosecuted" are two different things.

This may well have been solved (in fact, I believe it is) but prosecuting is a whole different ball game.

:moo:

 

[orora]

Unsolved due to how smart the perpetrators or how botched the investigation?

 

[fabgod]

all good points and well reasoned, Sapphire, I think you are most likely correct in your assumption that the case was solved a long time ago, but as you say, to successfully prosecute is a completely different game.
I think that it is without question that without any evidence to support an abductor, that "something" obviously happened to Madeleine, that therefore only leaves one credible direction in which to proceed.

From the official reports available, there is no doubt that the PJ were of that very conclusion, yet without evidence that would stand up to scrutiny in court, they had in effect nothing.
Even the wording of the much misquoted lifting of arguido status led in that direction, yet most dont, cannot or will not see that, preferring to follow a path that has so little credibility, it shocks me.

I can fully understand that the majority of people exposed to the case will have read only the tabloids and will have firstly gone along with the stories of a child snatched from her bed, they then were given the twists that subsequently were deemed libellous and now to be honest are probably somewhat disinterested and numbed to the endless "sightings" that have become something of a freak show.
However I am as I mentioned earlier, shocked at the reactions of some who seem to have looked a little deeper and yet still hold firmly to the claim of abduction.

Its not really about stating over and over again that there is no evidence therefore there must be an abductor, the same statement would surely apply then that there is no evidence that there was an abductor, but there is so much circumstantial evidence in weak statements, behaviour, forensic and dog alerts, that while none singularly prove anything at all, in conjunction with each other amount to a convincing direction in which to investigate.
Orora, as above, but added to that, I still feel and have done all along as stated in my various posts, that I personally feel there is something missing, I do not have an answer as to what, but a further piece that would indeed explain how this could have unfolded and been managed to this point.
Hopefully, one day, we will be made aware of it, maybe some of us already know, time will tell.

 

[fabgod]

Unsolved due to how smart the perpetrators or how botched the investigation?

I realise this question is not aimed at me but for what its worth,my reply would be,
certainly not unsolved because of the smartness of the perpetrators, if taken as the commonly acknowledged persons.
Partly due to an investigation that was purposely muddied and most likely without the experience to investigate what was faced quickly enough to be able to react at a time when there was a window in which to make such reactions.
I hope that made sense to you?

 

[brit1981]

The fact that the dogs alerted to areas which were later tested and found POSITIVE for DNA from Madeleine (or close family) is just a coincidence then?

The cadaver dog alerted to the "scent of death" in one apartment only, 5a.

How can this be explained?

First of all no cadaver dog was used. A recovery dog was used which alerts to bodily fluids.
The material found was not even identified as belonging to one person. The material in the car belonged to three to five people. So unless we are claiming three to five people died we cannot say a recovery dog alerting there is indicitive of death. besides the dog alerts to bodily fluids, so the fact he alerted and bodily fluids were found is not suspicious. No bit of material was ever found to be madeleine's DNA. In fact some of the material was positively identified as belonging to other people including the PJ and other occupants of flat 5A.
So all we can say is that a dog which alerts to bodily fluids alerted in places where bodily fluids were found. Not exactly suspicious.

It is very misrepresentative to claim the PJ report was conclusive to it being solved and aguido status only being lifted through of lack of evidence that would stand up to scrutiny. this is not what was said at all, and it is wrong to misrepresent this report. It stated quite clearly there was no evidence against any of the three. It is not up to anyone else to put their own interpretation on this and then ortray it is fact. Nor is it right to say people who believe the abduction theory are basing their ideas on tabloids, when so many of the myths that we see spouting here against the mccanns are from tabloids and have been proven wrong, such as the dog was a cadaver dog which only alerts to the scent of death, or that madeleine's dna was found etc. Scotland yard have seen more evidence than any of us and they have stated it was a stranger abduction, i really do not think they based their ideas on tabloids.

as for whether the case has not been solved because of a clever criminal or a botched investigation, we cannot know. Scotland yard state it was a stranger abduction and that there were nearly two hundred investigative opportunities missed in the original investigation so that does not sound good, but obviously until a time comes when they can release their full review and all of the evidence we will never know what could have made a difference to finding her.

 

[SapphireSteel]

. It is not up to anyone else to put their own interpretation on this and then ortray it is fact. Nor is it right to say people who believe the abduction theory are basing their ideas on tabloids, when so many of the myths that we see spouting here against the mccanns are from tabloids and have been proven wrong.

sbm.

But isn't that what you are doing with the DNA?

Claiming it proves - not sure how - that the McCanns are completely innocent?

As to "myths" - as no one knows what happened to Madeleine, how do we know what is mythical and what is not?

:dunno: