Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[Tink]

Clutchbag, I actually know Gary Durenfeld - the social worker interviewed on that TV clip. I love how he was so absolutely clear: whatever happened, the parents are at fault and should NEVER have left those kids alone.

And yes, I find that video of Gerry chilling. I have friends who have had children die and it was weeks before we could coax a smile out of them.

Tink

 

[Clutchbag]

:jail:

Perhaps you are privy to facts that I am not. I'm reading the websites linked to here as well as Kate's book. I'm simply attempting to understand the case with the information available to me. I just don't completely agree with your position based on what I currently know.



I was not aware that I was required to respond to everything you say here. I am not ignoring anything. I'm reading and digesting and thinking.

Fine but I will warn you that it IS a fact that KM has rewritten history in her book, I know this for a fact because I have followed the case from day one, read all the sites watched all the videos

And it IS a fact that those parents have never been cleared or declared innocent

Take care and enjoy pondering

You might like to ponder on why they keep their accounts secret, and not tell the public who gave them those monies what they did with it

You may also like to ponder on why people gave them money to help the search in the millions but they are CHARGING people money on top for items to help the alledged search

To this day they are asking for money when they have NO detectives employed and when the met police have pledged 3.5 million quid on the case

Follow the money as they say

 

[osadelnorte]

:jail:



Fine but I will warn you that it IS a fact that KM has rewritten history in her book, I know this for a fact because I have followed the case drom day one, read all the sites watched all the videos

And it IS a fact that those parents have never been cleared or declared innocent

Take care and enjoy pondering

You might like to ponder on why they keep their accounts secret, and not tell the public who gave them those monies what they did with if

You may also like to ponder on why people gave them money to help the search in the millions but they are CHARGING people money on top for items to help the alledged search

Yes, I am "pondering" all of these things. But one thing I do know for sure is that none of it conclusively proves that they murdered their child. If that evidence is forthcoming, I am waiting patiently to "ponder" it as well.

 

[Clutchbag]

Yes, I am "pondering" all of these things. But one thing I do know for sure is that none of it conclusively proves that they murdered their child. If that evidence is forthcoming, I am waiting patiently to "ponder" it as well.

No one apart from some internet users has ever accused them of that, ever, police certainly didnt so its out of the equation fact wise

What the police have said and never was retracted by the second person to take over the investigation is they believe the abduction claim was false and the final decision taken onto cold casing this there was no evidence, never cleared though, never, even british police said there was nothing in the files to exonerate the mccanns those are the facts, goodnite

 

[osadelnorte]

No one apart from some internet users has ever accused them of that, ever, police certainly didnt so its out of the equation fact wise

Okay, but as far as I'm concerned, the same goes for them having any hand at all in her disappearance or death. I just don't know. I don't approve of what they did when they left the children alone either. I'm not defending their actions by any means.

What the police have said and never was retracted by the second person to take over the investigation is they believe the abduction claim was false and the final decision taken onto cold casing this there was no evidence, never cleared though, never, even british police said there was nothing in the files to exonerate the mccanns those are the facts, goodnite

I know. Goodnight to you.

 

[Clutchbag]

Okay, but as far as I'm concerned, the same goes for them having any hand at all in her disappearance or death. I just don't know. I don't approve of what they did when they left the children alone either. I'm not defending their actions by any means.

no the same does not go about them having any hand seeing as the police concluded this back in sept 07 , that they DID have a hand, and faked the abduction, and was never contracted by the new team after the original investigator was sacked

See u later

 

[SapphireSteel]

Okay, but as far as I'm concerned, the same goes for them having any hand at all in her disappearance or death. I just don't know. I don't approve of what they did when they left the children alone either. I'm not defending their actions by any means.



I know. Goodnight to you.

All I can suggest is that you read up on the case a bit more.

There is actually mountains of evidence that the McCann was involved in Madeleine's disappearance and the resulting cover up.

The only reason they were not charged rests with the political interferance they were able to engage.

The Portugese essentially never wish to hear the name McCann ever again, which is why they have shut the case and will not reopen it.

Too many reputations are at stake now...the McCann managed to tar a lot of people with their own brush.

This case actually caused a lot of damage in Portugal/UK diplomatic relations and the US Ambassador was drawn into it as well.

We now have proof of high level intereferance thanks to Wikileaks.

:cow:

 

[osadelnorte]

All I can suggest is that you read up on the case a bit more.

There is actually mountains of evidence that the McCann was involved in Madeleine's disappearance and the resulting cover up.

The only reason they were not charged rests with the political interferance they were able to engage.

The Portugese essentially never wish to hear the name McCann ever again, which is why they have shut the case and will not reopen it.

Too many reputations are at stake now...the McCann managed to tar a lot of people with their own brush.

This case actually caused a lot of damage in Portugal/UK diplomatic relations and the US Ambassador was drawn into it as well.

We now have proof of high level intereferance thanks to Wikileaks.

:cow:

I'm sure I have only begun to scratch the surface of the information available. I am currently attempting to read the mccannfiles.com website in small chunks when I can sit down to do so (I am a homeschooling mother of two and Websleuthing is a hobby when I can carve out the time for it). I have also lurked here for years and try to learn what I can from the other posters. The point is, I'm still making up my mind. I recognize that there has been shady, underhanded stuff going on with this case and that is has gone on for a long time. I get that, truly. But I'm not convinced either way. If fence-sitters are not welcome here, I understand. I just can't seem to force my thoughts into one direction or the other, not yet anyway.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I'm sure I have only begun to scratch the surface of the information available. I am currently attempting to read the mccannfiles.com website in small chunks when I can sit down to do so (I am a homeschooling mother of two and Websleuthing is a hobby when I can carve out the time for it). I have also lurked here for years and try to learn what I can from the other posters. The point is, I'm still making up my mind. I recognize that there has been shady, underhanded stuff going on with this case and that is has gone on for a long time. I get that, truly. But I'm not convinced either way. If fence-sitters are not welcome here, I understand. I just can't seem to force my thoughts into one direction or the other, not yet anyway.

I didn't mean to imply you're not welcome!!!

We could hardly have a discussion if we all agreed.

This case, like Jonbenet, has divided people pretty much down the middle.

It seems as though you have the "guilty" side with all the concrete evidence (if circumstantial) and the "innocent" side with no evidence at all, but who still insist the parents are not involved.

The main reason behind this belief seems to be outright denial that nice wealthy white people could hurt their children.

All sleuthers know that this is not true.

The Blacksmith Bureau blogspot, while wildly prejudiced, brings up some extremely valid questions in regards to the McCann.

Greater minds than ours ponder this case, and have come up with some very unpleasant conclusions, a lot of which are supported by the evidence.

Just ugly...only continue sleuthing this one if you can stomach it.

If you know anything at all about Jonbenet, the McCann case is almost identical...eerily so.

 

[osadelnorte]

I didn't mean to imply you're not welcome!!!

We could hardly have a discussion if we all agreed.

This case, like Jonbenet, has divided people pretty much down the middle.

It seems as though you have the "guilty" side with all the concrete evidence (if circumstantial) and the "innocent" side with no evidence at all, but who still insist the parents are not involved.

The main reason behind this belief seems to be outright denial that nice wealthy white people could hurt their children.

All sleuthers know that this is not true.

The Blacksmith Bureau blogspot, while wildly prejudiced, brings up some extremely valid questions in regards to the McCann.

Greater minds than ours ponder this case, and have come up with some very unpleasant conclusions, a lot of which are supported by the evidence.

Just ugly...only continue sleuthing this one if you can stomach it.

If you know anything at all about Jonbenet, the McCann case is almost identical...eerily so.

I actually know much more about the Ramsey case than I do this one, but I agree, they are very similar.

I plan to continue reading as much as I can about the McCanns. I've been reading the mccannfiles for a couple of months and I'm forming definite opinions on certain things, of course. I have only read a few posts on the Blacksmith Bureau but I will check it out some more. Thanks for your post, SapphireSteel.

 

[gord]

no the same does not go about them having any hand seeing as the police concluded this back in sept 07 , that they DID have a hand, and faked the abduction, and was never contracted by the new team after the original investigator was sacked

See u later

The police never concluded that they had a hand in it !!!

The PJ conclusion was that it was not possible to make any conclusion about what happened to madeleine or where about she is ie there was no conclusive evidence about what happened ............

To say otherwise is just not accurate

 

[SapphireSteel]

The police never concluded that they had a hand in it !!!

The PJ conclusion was that it was not possible to make any conclusion about what happened to madeleine or where about she is ie there was no conclusive evidence about what happened ............

To say otherwise is just not accurate

To say the police "never concluded they had a hand in it" is completely false.

They could not complete the investigation because the McCann would not cooperate.

The investigation was shut down completely after the interferance of the UK and US Ambassadors and the British Prime Minister/s.

To state they could not make a conclusion due to no evidence is false.

They did come to a conclusion and were investigating that conclusion with a view to arresting the McCann when the politics began and they were shut down.

 

[gord]

They could not make a conclusion because they could not complete the investigation.

They could not complete the investigation because the McCann would not cooperate.

The investigation was shut down completely after the interferance of the UK and US Ambassadors and the British Prime Minister/s.

To state they could not make a conclusion due to no evidence is false.

They did come to a conclusion and were investigating that conclusion with a view to arresting the McCann when the politics began and they were shut down.

if you beleive that you will beleive anything - The case was shelved because of lack of evidence either way . Full stop

Nothing to do with goverment conspiracies that shut down the investigation - that is just pure internet conspiracy theory at its worst.

I read the final PJ report like most people did.


This is the exact wording from the final PJ report oon the case :

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many “news” of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity.

Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.

 

[SapphireSteel]

if you beleive that you will beleive anything - The case was shelved because of lack of evidence either way . Full stop

Nothing to do with goverment conspiracies that shut down the investigation - that is just pure internet conspiracy theory at its worst.

I read the final PJ report like most people did.


This is the exact wording from the final PJ report oon the case :

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many “news” of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity.

Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.

"Exceptional Media Exposure".

Hm...let's see...who was responsible for that?

The McCann of course! Kate, the worried mother, called Sky News BEFORE she called the police. As you do.

While we are talking about gullibility, how do you personally explain Tanner seeing the abductor, while Jez Wilkins saw neither Tanner nor the abductor, and he was standing in exactly the same place?

 

[gord]

"Exceptional Media Exposure".

Hm...let's see...who was responsible for that?

The McCann of course!

While we are talking about gullibility, how do you personally explain Tanner seeing the abductor, while Jez Wilkins saw neither Tanner nor the abductor, and he was standing in exactly the same place?

I lived in the UK through that period and to say the Mccans controlled the Tabloid press at that time is just laughable

They were at their worst then and there was daily headlines accusing them of involvemnet and as Levinson discovered many lies and false stories. they were hounded by the press daily - hence why they eventualy ended in court - since then the tabloids have had a few issues to say the least with all their dirty doings coming out.

We have been through teh timeline of Tanner many times and it was shown that it was entirely possiblle for an abductor to hand maddy out of the window facing the main road- neither Wilkins or Gerry would have seen that.

However that is neither here nor there we could argue that until the cows come home.

The facts are the Mcanns were never charged and the official concusive report from the PJ stated as above - NO EVIDENCE either way to take the case further.

If further evidence is ever found they can go back to court ,

But this has nothing to do with two goverments , two police forces , - sorry no three goverments as you have somehow involved the US anbassador into the conspiracy all getting togethre to shut down a case just as the PJ were about to arrest the Mcanns

I am sorry I can debate most things but when we get into the realms of La La land then it becomed pointless

 

[SapphireSteel]

I lived in the UK through that period and to say the Mccans controlled the Tabloid press at that time is just laughable

They were at their worst then and there was daily headlines accusing them of involvemnet and as Levinson discovered many lies and false stories. they were hounded by the press daily - hence why they eventualy ended in court - since then the tabloids have had a few issues to say the least with all their dirty doings coming out.

We have been through teh timeline of Tanner many times and it was shown that it was entirely possiblle for an abductor to hand maddy out of the window facing the main road- neither Wilkins or Gerry would have seen that.

However that is neither here nor there we could argue that until the cows come home.

The facts are the Mcanns were never charged and the official concusive report from the PF staed as above - NO EVIDENCE either way to take the case further.

If further evidence is ever found they can go back to court ,

But this has nothing to do with two goverments , two police forces , - sorry no three goverments as you have somehow involved the US anbassador into the conspiracy all getting togethre to shut down a case just as the PJ were about to arrest the Mcanns

I am sorry I can debate most things but when we get into the realms of La La land then it becomed pointless

"hand her out the window"....to WHOM?

Are you now saying there were TWO abductors?

Further, my point is not that Jez and Gerry should have seen the abduction (although they should have) but JEZ AND GERRY SHOULD HAVE SEEN TANNER.

She walked straight past them (according to her) in a very small, completely deserted laneway.

Why did Jez Wilkins not see her? It was IMPOSSIBLE for him not to see her, if she was there as she claimed.

While you are at it, rubbishing the investigation, the investigating officers, other posters etc, can you please tell me what EVIDENCE you have of an intruder?

Seeing as you claim to have superior knowledge and everyone else is not only naive, but slanderous to boot?

 

[gord]

"hand her out the window"....to WHOM?

Are you now saying there were TWO abductors?

Further, my point is not that Jez and Gerry should have seen the abduction (although they should have) but JEZ AND GERRY SHOULD HAVE SEEN TANNER.

She walked straight past them (according to her) in a very small, completely deserted laneway.

Why did Jez Wilkins not see her? It was IMPOSSIBLE for him not to see her, if she was there as she claimed.

While you are at it, rubbishing the investigation, the investigating officers, other posters etc, can you please tell me what EVIDENCE you have of an intruder?

Seeing as you claim to have superior knowledge and everyone else is not only naive, but slanderous to boot?

I neither claim to have superiour knowledge that anyome else. and yes it was entirely possoble that there were two abductors - one in the flat to hand the girl out the window. I dont know though - just sumising

But I agree with the OFFICIAL PJ report that says that there was insufficient evidence on all counts to take the case further,.

I do not agree withn your assertion that the case was shut down by two british prime ministers , the American Ambassador , the British Ambassador and also in this case involved our own police and of course the Porugese Goverment who obvioulsy instructed the PJ to close the case .This is just patent nonsense

 

[SapphireSteel]

I neither claim to have superiour knowledge that anyome else. and yes it was entirely possoble that there were two abductors - one in the flat to hand the girl out the window. I dont know though - just sumising

But I agree with the OFFICIAL PJ report that says that there was insufficient evidence on all counts to take the case further,.

I do not agree withn your assertion that the case was shut down by two british prime ministers , the American Ambassador , the British Ambassador and also in this case involved our own police and of course the Porugese Goverment who obvioulsy instructed the PJ to close the case .This is just patent nonsense

Let's discuss the "patent nonsense" of this case as you admit you have exactly zero evidence to support your conviction of evidence.

1. The window was "jemmied". Lies.
2. They could see the apartment from the restaurant. Lies.
3. The David Oldfield visit...either a couple of minutes watching Kate play with the children (Oldfield) or popping his head around the door while Kate was in the shower (McCann). Lies.
4. They regularly checked the children. Lies.
5. Who picked Madeleine up from Creche? Gerry says it was him, Kate said it was her. Lies.
6. Tanner saw the abductor (only one) but Gerry and Jez did not. Lies
7. Tanner walked past Gerry and Jez. Lies.

I could go on, but the fact is these people told multiple stories, multiple versions, which we can PROVE.

They lawyered up and left the country despite saying they would not leave without Madeleine. Another lie.

They said they would be happy to return if required. Lie.

They said Madeleine only answered to Madeleine. Lie.

So...my question...how did Jez Wilkins not see Tanner?

If there were two abductors (marvellous imagination) how did they manage to enter, abduct, leave, all without one trace of forensics?

The window could not be opened from the outside (another lie) and the door was unlocked.

What abductor would enter through an unlocked door and leave through a window?

To use your phrase...Patent Nonsense.

 

[gord]

Let's discuss the "patent nonsense" of this case as you admit you have exactly zero evidence to support your conviction of evidence.

1. The window was "jemmied". Lies.
2. They could see the apartment from the restaurant. Lies.
3. The David Oldfield visit...either a couple of minutes watching Kate play with the children (Oldfield) or popping his head around the door while Kate was in the shower (McCann). Lies.
4. They regularly checked the children. Lies.
5. Who picked Madeleine up from Creche? Gerry says it was him, Kate said it was her. Lies.
6. Tanner saw the abductor (only one) but Gerry and Jez did not. Lies
7. Tanner walked past Gerry and Jez. Lies.

I could go on, but the fact is these people told multiple stories, multiple versions, which we can PROVE.

They lawyered up and left the country despite saying they would not leave without Madeleine. Another lie.

They said they would be happy to return if required. Lie.

They said Madeleine only answered to Madeleine. Lie.

So...my question...how did Jez Wilkins not see Tanner?

If there were two abductors (marvellous imagination) how did they manage to enter, abduct, leave, all without one trace of forensics?

The window could not be opened from the outside (another lie) and the door was unlocked.

What abductor would enter through an unlocked door and leave through a window?

To use your phrase...Patent Nonsense.

no I didnt comment on any of the above - i was commenting on your assertion that this was a cover up that involved the US Ambassador , the UK Ambassador British Prime ministers the British police , who else ? ....... I could go on but that is enough - that is the patent nonsense I was talking about

 

[SapphireSteel]

no I didnt comment on any of the above - i was commenting on your assertion that this was a cover up that involved the US Ambassador , the UK Ambassador British Prime ministers the British police , who else ? ....... I could go on but that is enough - that is the patent nonsense I was talking about

I would welcome your comment on the questions I have regarding

The Tanner sighting and Jez Wilkins
The lack of forensic evidence of any intruder
The lies the McCann has told.

Instead of bluster and sarcasm, some substance to your allegations of "lala land" and "patent nonsense" would give some credence to your unsubstantiated opinion that the McCann is entirely innocent.