"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[fabgod]

again we have this conflict between bad parents and murder /disposal. I think it is pretty safe to say that parents who might dispopse of their daughter could be classified as bad !!

My own theory - If we accept that in this world there are evil people out there who can and do abduct and kill youngsters .

I think that this was planned and the Mccanns were watched, I think there were two abductors . They knew that the family were checking instead of staying with. Abductor one enters through the Patio door - he knows the layout of the villas . He opens the shutters and window and passes teh child out to acomplice, Maddy might have been cloroform or not . Abductor 2 then walks quickly to a car - adbductor one leaves by the patio door again and meets in a pre arranged place . They are in spain within the hour - no evidence no cctv, no DNA nothing except a fleeting glance by JT at someone carrying a child - not saying that is what happened but it has more logic to me than boats shovels or stolen cars.

I also am still not convinced on Murat - but you have to hope the police did their checking of his house well

Hi Gord
Your theory is as plausible as any and thats all any of us can offer.
One question that springs to mind though, is, if abductor 2 is the man seen by JT, how does abductor 1 get out of the apartment without being seen by either JT or Gerry McCann/Jeremy Wilkins?, wouldnt they have had all exits covered?

I agree with you on the Robert Murat search, which then begs the question, why is there seemingly no interest from Madeleines parents in finding out one way or another?

 

[Donjeta]

What is the significance/benefit of the window?

If someone happened to see I'd think that an adult walking through a door with a child would attract less attention than a child being passed through the window.

 

[brit1981]

Hi all
Have just been reading this thread with amazement that someone can be so blinkered in their unwavering faith in people they "apparently" do not personally know and whose only knowledge of the involved is from what has been printed about them.

Why is the apparently in quotes?
As we know only too well, it can be dangerous to believe something or someone without looking into the facts and the backgrounds of those involved.

We need evidence, facts, yet when these facts are presented, they are discarded, such as the cadaver dogs and the door. We are told that it is perfectly legal and thousands do it when we question why parents of three children all under 4 years of age were left every night in an apartment that wasnt locked, in the dark, that had been upset on previous nights.
It's also acceptable to leave your children with a creche every morning and afternoon, it may have been acceptable to a few but I think the general consensus is that it isn't acceptable to the majority.

There were no cadaver dogs used. There was a dog trained to alert to the scent of bodily fluids, and the scent of cadavers called an enhanced victim recovery dog. this dog has also been incorrect since the mccan case, and had only found one body on the fifteen case he worked alone on with the sy police. But as I said he also alerts to bodly fluids including dried blood, and acccording to the statements of previous tenants, they had been one case of severe bleeding in the flat, and someone else who received a cut requiring stitches whilst staying there which may have bleed or resulted in dried blooding falling from it. Grimes states that the EVRD would alert to this.

As for leaving the children in creche and alone. The creche was used by a large number of people staying there, so the fact is a lot of people do think it is acceptable. And pletny of epopel use nanny listenign services (i.e leave the children, and just have someone listen outside the door every half an hour), so obviously the vast majority do nto agree it is wrong. besides it is neither here nor there if people do not find their parenting acceptable. Their parenting is nothing to do with anyone else, and as it was legal there is no issue and is just being used to muddy the waters.
How can anybody just accept that it was ok to leave those children on the word of people that they do not know? Just because we are told that it felt okay and safe doesn't mean it was okay and safe, Within a day of being in an unknown area in a different country, it felt right that they could leave doors unlocked and eat and drink with friends whilst being out of sight of their children. The Restaurant was across a swimming pool, through an entrance, down a street up a flight of stairs away, how is that acceptable.

It was fifty metres directly, and just over seventy to walk. Not that far. And as the area publicized itself on beign a quiet sleepy village why would people think it was dangerous. remember at this time the previous cases or an intruder breaking into holiday flats and assaulting tourist children had been kept quiet.
The thought that a stranger assaulted Madeleine on her bed and accidentally killed her and then decided to take the body away, is more plausible than parental involvement?

No evidence of a stranger in the apartment, no sign of assault on the beds, no DNA, the twins not stirring, the shutter not being forced, no evidence of fingerprints (apart from Kate McCann) or tampering?

That is not true. The shutter could be opened from the outside. No-one has said it was not forced. But as it could be opened form the outside it would not appear to be forced. According to other tennents it was possible for someone on the outside to open the front door even though it was locked and had the key in (they had locked the door and left the key in to stip the cleaner just bursting in, and then found she could just open the door anyway!!). ther were other fingerprints found, they were just never identified. So what if the twins did not stir, I know plenty of toddlers who would not stir, even if they were picked up and carried somewhere. There was unidentified DNA found int he flat, but a proper search was not done until ages afterwards when other people had been allowed to stay int he flat. The sheets were not examined either. As far as I am aware they only looked for material where the dogs alerted!
Then, the now murderer decides to take the body out again later that evening, not even taking the time to cover it up? hmmm, the defence of the McCanns is admirable, maybe there was a stranger but if we are looking for evidence of that, there is none, nothing!

No-one official has stated they believe Madeleine was killed in the flat (although given the other attacks it is sadly a possibility). Scotland yard say they believe it was a stranger abduction, and that Madeleine may not be dead. They have all the material, and are looking at new leads.
Jane Tanners sighting is pretty unstable, she tried to say it Robert Murat, she identified a man without a face yet she could be then sure it was Robert Murat?

jane Tanner never once identified Murat. the police tried to do a very dodgy (and illeagl) line up by getting her to sit in a van and point to murat walkign by, but she said she could not identify him as the man she saw. that is an internet myth. But why is jane Tanner's sighting unstable?
Jane Tanner apparently, saw a man carrying Madeleine, yet she only took notice in this quiet safe town of the fact that she was barefoot? One of her close friends' children being carried off, (dead, if we are to believe this theory proposed here) and she doesnt recognise a child she has been on holiday for almost a week with?

Jane only said she saw a man carrying a child in pink pyjamas. She said she never saw the child's face, and only thought it was a girl because of the pink clothing. She said the only reason she thought anythign of it was ebcause the child was barefoot, and was beign carried in an odd way, but she said there was nothing in it at the time to alarm her.

It doesn't add up, we can all make mistakes and most of us have done, the difference is, if most of us made a mistake that was so catastrophic, we wouldn't be doing everything in our power to silence anyone who didn't agree with our version of events by taking legal action, we would be doing anything and everything we possibly could to attone for our error, they wanted our money and our attention, but they never willingly admitted their error, they had to be pushed, as though they had done nothing wrong.

The Mccanns have only take three libel actions. One was against a man who has a reputation for behaving like this to vunerable people, and even then only after he came to their village and put a leaflet containing outright lies in in, into people' homes. This man has written parodies of christmas songs mocking the disappearence, written a letter as if it is madeleine speaking beyond the grave, has claimed a picture of madeleine is sexually provocative and he is linked to far right and anti-immigration groups and has made nasty remarks about a parent of a murdered schooolgirl being part of leveson module 4 because he does not like that person's sex life. he was barred by the courts from continuing his harressment, but has broken the court order, so now he is accused of contempt of court.

The second action as taken against a convicted criminal, or was put in charge of the case forn just six months. This criminal later wrote a book, which was banned, but the ban was overturned. The overturn was to do with free speech, and the court stated it was not ruling on its factuality. So now there is a libel case. The criminal himself has taken people to criminal court for libel, so he cannot claim it is wrong to sue for libel (he lost and had to pay all costs in his libel case where he was accused of torture)

The third was against a news group, which admitted they had printed false stories, and printed a front page apology. Murat was also awarded compensation for false stories about him.

Personally I think the best way "to atone for the error" is to do everything to find madeleine. I fail to see how cowtowing to a bunch of individuels like the two I mentioned above is atoning, as they have nothing to do with finding Madeleine. madeleine is important not a bunch of self entitled individuels.
Well within the bounds of responsible parenting? just because it isn't illegal (if that is truly the case) doesn't for one minute mean that is is okay!

Well actually if something is legal it is normal to assume it is OK. But that is by the by, it does not mean they are guilty of killing madeleine, or hiding her death.

 

[Donjeta]

If you ask me there are lots of things that are legal but are not OK. There are things that are not good for our children but have not been made illegal. The law is just what's been written, it's never going to have the last word about the okayness of everything.


These are intelligent, educated people. I'm pretty sure they're capable of thinking beyond the very simple formula: "If the law doesn't forbid it we can assume it's OK". It's a rather simplistic view of morality, parenting, whatnot.

 

[brit1981]

iffy. They knew the children had woken up just the night before. A sleeping child may become an awake child in a matter of moments.

yes, but that is why they were cheking every half an hour (yes i think this was stupid, but not suspicious)
not necessarily, it would be enough for someone to decide not to help her, even if it was possible. There are also occasional cases in which parents have been involved in the disappearance but the child didn't die, at least not immediately. Not really seeing these scenarios here but it's been known to happen.

but why not help her?
not sure why seven people would have to be lying for them. Do they all claim to have madeleine and the parents accounted for all the time?
Normal behavior is a very subjective assessment and proves nothing to me. Some people freak out after a crime and others act as if nothing had happened.

matt, david, and jane would have to be lying for starters, plus all the others who confirm the time lines.


well, to narrow the window?

but why six thirty, when the mccanns were olone with her for another two hours. If he is lying it makes no sense to lie about that. Why not lie and say he went to check at nine thirty and saw her, or he saw her just as the mccanns left at eight thirty. A witness saying madeleine was alive as the parents left is useful, a witness saying she was alive at six thirty is not.

so because gerry and jez didn't see her pass them it proves that she was right?

There are other things besides lies and truths, such as mistaken eyewitness statements.

It's very unfortunate she didn't tell anyone she saw madeleine being carried away at the time they could have caught up with him.

she said she did not realise it was madeleine. She said she just saw a man with a child, and that because the child was in pink she assumed it was a girl. Remember a lot of people were carrying children back from creche at this time so it would nto eb unusual to see this. She just remembered it because of the barefeet and odd carrying position. Since no-one has come forward to say it was them, it has been thought to be suspicious. Jane did tell the police of what she saw that night though.


i don't really understand how he can say he went to "check" on madeleine if he didn't even confirm if she was there or not. Completely pointless.

they were only listening for crying. The nanny listening services at other mw resorts only do that i.e just listen.

i don't really see them as typical car thieves. Did any of the tapas 9 rent a bike?
do not think so

the mccanns weren't famous the night madeleine disappeared so they could imo easily have been somewhere and not attracted any particular attention. Some people are not very observant. As for gardens, you could "break" into my garden (it's not fenced) and if i didn't see you you could walk away with a number of gardening tools and i wouldn't know until much later, whenever i need them the next time. By that time it would be impossible to know when they disappeared and i'm not even sure if i'd report a missing shovel, if it wasn't gold plated.

But i think bodies of water or dumpsters are easier than digging a grave.

i do agree, and apparently the bins were not checked properly before they were emptied. But it really is a bit far fetched to think a family with no history of abuse would dump their toddler in a bin to be chucked on a tip.

generally the reason people lie and cover up things is because telling the truth implicates them in some wrongdoing and they do not want to face the consequences.

but what wrong doing? No evidence that madeleine came to harm was ever found int he flat.


not sure why it must be because of sedation although i do find some things that are suggestive of that: The children had woken up the night before yet people keep saying (you in the above post included) that kate and gerry knew they would be asleep and that's why it was safe to leave them behind unlocked doors. How did they know they would be asleep when there was a precedent of them being not asleep?

they had only woken up one night, but kate says she saw the children that night and they were all asleep at their checks. But the reason they checked on them was to ensure they were still alsleep.
another suggestive thing was kate mccann saying that she thought the twins were drowsy and suspected the abductor might have drugged them. Now this makes sense if it's to cover up that the parents drugged them but why would an abductor drug the twins? Did he wake them up to force feed them some pills? Most drugs that are readily available to an average person take some time to take effect and the abductor would be long gone with madeleine by the time the twins were properly under the influence. What's the benefit?

i do not really agree with kate on this one, and to be honest when the mccanns say this it sounds like people do when they go back over an event looking for tiny clues as to what happened, looking for significance in anything. Toddlers do sleep really soundly, at least many do, and i know plenty who once they fall asleep they will nto wake up until they are good and ready (i have carried sleeping toddlers about before).

the problem with the sedation scenario is imo that it makes sense for parents to sedate their kids when they're going out which probably means it didn't happen at 5:30 and it narrows the timeline.

But there are always good oldfashioned violent outbursts. Happens in a minute, at any time of day.

but no evidence of this though, and you have to be certain the twins did not witness it and talk about it. The mccanns had family liason officers with them after the disappearence, and whilst they are there to help the family they do also report back anything suspicious they witness.

not really sure why we have to accept that seven people agreed to cover it up.

because of the timelines, and also this is what those claiming the mccanns were involved are also claiming (along with fss, three governments, ambassadors etc). For instance people saw david leaving the tennis courts to go up to see flat 5a at six thirtyish, so either the witness are all lying or david really did go up there, or gerry asked him to go up, and david did not or went already knowing what had happened. But for the latter to be true, madeleine had to die in the twenty minutes between arriving home, and gerry going, and gerry also had to tell his friend on the tennis courts and arrange this bit of trickery whilst carrying on playing tennis.

 

[brit1981]

What is the significance/benefit of the window?

If someone happened to see I'd think that an adult walking through a door with a child would attract less attention than a child being passed through the window.

Apparently it is normal for intrudors to make a second escape route as soon as they enter a property. It could aslo be a red herring. kate says she only noticed the window was open because they was a breeze which blew the curtains up. So it is not impossible that the cleaner had opened the shutters and window earlier int he day, but shut the blinds to keep the sun out, and no-one noticed because there was no breeze to move the blinds. But the cleaner has never stated that she did this.

It could be that someone came into the flat, straight away opened the window so they had a quick escape route, but decided to use the front door in the end as they were not distrubed. the front door and bedroom window both back on to a car park which was not busy so it would be easy for someone to leave by the front door with no one noticing. Or it could easily be that they did pass madeleine out of the window and no-one saw. The area around the flat was unlit, and secluded due to trees, and as other parts of the car park were lit up it made it even harder to see the area around the flat. People did report that they had seen someone hanging around the flats during the day that seemed suspicious, one even claimed she saw a man coming down from near 5b, when the occupants (Mccann friends) were not there. I think Gord's theory is the most plausible. Someone just walke dinto the flat, and either passed madeleine out of the window, or just walked out with her.

As for Murat the police checked his home out and dug up areas back in summer 2007. They know there is nothing buried there. The McCanns were made aware of the new claims by Birch before the media were, and I am pretty certain the police would have told them that the area had already been searched and nothing found.

 

[Donjeta]

yes, but that is why they were cheking every half an hour (yes i think this was stupid, but not suspicious)

Definitely stupid. 30 minutes is plenty of time for a wandering child to drown in the pool or get in trouble some other way.

but why not help her?

Generally people who do not call for help when their children are hurt do not do so because they think it might lead to arrest.

matt, david, and jane would have to be lying for starters, plus all the others who confirm the time lines.

Still don't see why, you just said that there are two hours that the McCanns were alone with her and apparently nobody outside says they saw her alive after 6:30.
If something happened to her in the early evening while the McCanns were not accounted for no one needs to be lying at all about the events that took place later in the evening.

but why six thirty, when the mccanns were olone with her for another two hours. If he is lying it makes no sense to lie about that. Why not lie and say he went to check at nine thirty and saw her, or he saw her just as the mccanns left at eight thirty. A witness saying madeleine was alive as the parents left is useful, a witness saying she was alive at six thirty is not.

It's useful for Gerry I'd think, giving him a narrower window because of the tennis match.

i do agree, and apparently the bins were not checked properly before they were emptied. But it really is a bit far fetched to think a family with no history of abuse would dump their toddler in a bin to be chucked on a tip.

No history of abuse may mean that there is no abuse or that it never got reported. It's not uncommon for families to cover abuse up. It's not good for the career.

but what wrong doing? No evidence that madeleine came to harm was ever found int he flat.

Well, there doesn't have to be a lot of blood for a child to die. And are we sure it happened in the flat anyway? They could have gone somewhere else.


i do not really agree with kate on this one, and to be honest when the mccanns say this it sounds like people do when they go back over an event looking for tiny clues as to what happened, looking for significance in anything. Toddlers do sleep really soundly, at least many do, and i know plenty who once they fall asleep they will nto wake up until they are good and ready (i have carried sleeping toddlers about before).

it's possible, I have experience of such children too.

but no evidence of this though, and you have to be certain the twins did not witness it and talk about it. The mccanns had family liason officers with them after the disappearence, and whilst they are there to help the family they do also report back anything suspicious they witness.

How verbal were the twins at the time? One of my kids probably could have ratted me out at the age of a year and a half but another had a vocabulary of five words or so on his second birthday and most of what he said made no sense to people outside the family for much of his third year.

because of the timelines, and also this is what those claiming the mccanns were involved are also claiming (along with fss, three governments, ambassadors etc). For instance people saw david leaving the tennis courts to go up to see flat 5a at six thirtyish, so either the witness are all lying or david really did go up there, or gerry asked him to go up, and david did not or went already knowing what had happened. But for the latter to be true, madeleine had to die in the twenty minutes between arriving home, and gerry going, and gerry also had to tell his friend on the tennis courts and arrange this bit of trickery whilst carrying on playing tennis.

OK I'm a bit lost (fuzzy with the details), I've no idea who David is or what happened in the flat 5a (is that the McCanns?) but supposing that he told the absolute truth about seeing Madeleine at 6:30 there is still enough time to hit a child and carry the body off to the nearest dumpster and arrive smiling at a Tapas bar at 8:30 and to carry on with a system of half-hourly non-checks afterwards.

Why did David go up to see flat 5a?

 

[brit1981]

David, is david payne a friend of the mccanns who was playing tennis with Gerry and went up to flat 5A to ask Kate about something, and reported seeing madeleine alive and well. I think he was going up to see his own family and gerry asked him to pop in and see if kate was bring the children to the park.

So we have several people saying madeleine was alive and well at five thirty. We know it took a few minutes to walk back so the earliest they were at the flat was five forty. Several people say they saw Gerry at tennis between six and seven thirty. David claims to have seen madeleine alive and well at six thirty. Lots of people saw kate and Gerry at eight thirty. So for Gerry to have been involved whatever happened had to happen between five forty and six, and seven thirty and eight thirty. Its a pretty small window to decide to cover-up your child's death, and plan it so well no evidence was ever found (when gerry appeared at dinner he had showered and changed, so he had less than an hour to dispose of madeleine, where the hell did he put her that a huge search team did not find her).
If something happened to Madeleine before the match then it happened in a twenty minute window, and Gerry had to decide to go and play tennis anyway just a few minutes later. If it happened whilst he was at tennis there is no reason to think David going up there was a set up, and it still only gives Gerry an hour to have covered it up, shower and change and go for dinner, where no-one noticed anything abnormal about them. It just does not seem plausible.

It is possible that the twins could not communicate much, but they only needed to make people suspicious, not give an exact account. If the twins had been there why would the mccanns allow them to spend so much time with other people including MW staff after the event - it is a big risk.

Independent witness had seen someone watching the flat, so I think the scenario where someone just walked in and took her is much more likely. There was another girl who disappeared just a few miles away just three years before, and the only evidence in the case there, was a confession by the mother, who courts ruled had been tortured. It is rare to have children disappear with no trace, yet here we have two close together (plus a boy called yeremi vargos disappeared just two months before madeleine in gran canaria, and two suspects were known to have been travelling in Portugal at the time of Madeleine's disappearence I believe).

 

[fabgod]

Apparently it is normal for intrudors to make a second escape route as soon as they enter a property. It could aslo be a red herring. kate says she only noticed the window was open because they was a breeze which blew the curtains up. So it is not impossible that the cleaner had opened the shutters and window earlier int he day, but shut the blinds to keep the sun out, and no-one noticed because there was no breeze to move the blinds. But the cleaner has never stated that she did this.

It could be that someone came into the flat, straight away opened the window so they had a quick escape route, but decided to use the front door in the end as they were not distrubed. the front door and bedroom window both back on to a car park which was not busy so it would be easy for someone to leave by the front door with no one noticing. Or it could easily be that they did pass madeleine out of the window and no-one saw. The area around the flat was unlit, and secluded due to trees, and as other parts of the car park were lit up it made it even harder to see the area around the flat. People did report that they had seen someone hanging around the flats during the day that seemed suspicious, one even claimed she saw a man coming down from near 5b, when the occupants (Mccann friends) were not there. I think Gord's theory is the most plausible. Someone just walke dinto the flat, and either passed madeleine out of the window, or just walked out with her.

As for Murat the police checked his home out and dug up areas back in summer 2007. They know there is nothing buried there. The McCanns were made aware of the new claims by Birch before the media were, and I am pretty certain the police would have told them that the area had already been searched and nothing found.

Brit1981, I think by now, I can safely assume that you believe the McCanns to be innocent of anything except for being a little naive in their leaving of the three children each night in an otherwise quiet and safe environment that unfortunately turned out to be not so safe, what with all the reports of strangers watching flats, other children going missing including Jeremi Vargas in Tenerife which is only around 700 miles away (just for reference, the entire length of Great Britain is 603 miles by the way).

So moving on, how would you possibly know that the McCanns were made aware of the new claims regarding Stephen Birch "before the media"?
How could you know that Brit1981?

 

[Cappuccino]

Brit1981, I think by now, I can safely assume that you believe the McCanns to be innocent of anything except for being a little naive in their leaving of the three children each night in an otherwise quiet and safe environment that unfortunately turned out to be not so safe, what with all the reports of strangers watching flats, other children going missing including Jeremi Vargas in Tenerife which is only around 700 miles away (just for reference, the entire length of Great Britain is 603 miles by the way).

I think you may have missed the point here. The reason the Vargas child's disappearance was brought up is because two of the suspects in that case were in the vicinity, not because Vargas disappeared in the vicinity...

Independent witness had seen someone watching the flat, so I think the scenario where someone just walked in and took her is much more likely. There was another girl who disappeared just a few miles away just three years before, and the only evidence in the case there, was a confession by the mother, who courts ruled had been tortured. It is rare to have children disappear with no trace, yet here we have two close together (plus a boy called yeremi vargos disappeared just two months before madeleine in gran canaria, and two suspects were known to have been travelling in Portugal at the time of Madeleine's disappearence I believe).

 

[brit1981]

Brit1981, I think by now, I can safely assume that you believe the McCanns to be innocent of anything except for being a little naive in their leaving of the three children each night in an otherwise quiet and safe environment that unfortunately turned out to be not so safe, what with all the reports of strangers watching flats, other children going missing including Jeremi Vargas in Tenerife which is only around 700 miles away (just for reference, the entire length of Great Britain is 603 miles by the way).

So moving on, how would you possibly know that the McCanns were made aware of the new claims regarding Stephen Birch "before the media"?
How could you know that Brit1981?

As they have never even been charged let alone found guilty they are innocent. Not one shred of evidence has been found against them either (all there ever was, was a EVRD alerting but who according to the handler alerts to bodily fluids too, and some cellular material in a car which could just as easily have come from Gerry and Kate as from Madeleine).

Yeremi Vargos is not an issue because of the location of where he was abducted, but because of the location of two suspects in his abduction. When suspects in one abduction are believed to have been in the location of another abduction several hundred miles away, but only two months later, it is something worth looking at, if only to be able to discount it. I know it is rare for people to target both boys and girls but reports have stated these two have links to other people like them, and they had apparently worked in holiday flats.

But as for the Mccanns being informed by police, several newspapers have reported this, kate McCann stated this in an interview, Clarence Mitchell confirmed it, and I think the police also stated this. I believe Birch did contact police about this, and it is normal for the police to let the family (meaning any family in this sort of situation) know of anything like this that is going to appeared in the news, so that they do not have to hear it from the media first. But as it has been state don national TV, it is not really a mystery as to how I know this, anyone in the UK who watched morning television was in a position to know this.

One thing that is interesting about Birch, is that if he is telling the truth about his activities, no-one noticed. I believe he was able to set up cameras watching the house, then at some point him and two other people (I think he had two people with him), were able to climb over the wall of the garden, along with a piece of rather hefty equipment and then stay there working for several hours without anyone noticing.

 

[Mysteryphile]

To answer the original poster No, I wouldn't leave three very small children alone in a motel room no matter how short of time it was. My son was 14 months before he slept through the night and I would have been very anxious that he would wake up and cry while I was away. He is 8 1/2 years old now and he's never been left alone.

Saying that, I do think they trusted the motel to check on the children, in-between them checking on them. I truly believe they thought the kids would be okay and they felt like they were NOT putting them in unnecessary danger.

Do I agree with that? No. Even now with our son being 8 I wouldnt leave him alone in the motel room even though he sleeps like a rock. I would be too worried about him.

I feel like they made a really, really, really poor choice and now are suffering (and probably will be suffering along with Madelene) for that bad choice for a long, long time.

Hopefully she'll be found and reunited with her family soon.

 

[fabgod]

As they have never even been charged let alone found guilty they are innocent. Not one shred of evidence has been found against them either (all there ever was, was a EVRD alerting but who according to the handler alerts to bodily fluids too, and some cellular material in a car which could just as easily have come from Gerry and Kate as from Madeleine).

Yeremi Vargos is not an issue because of the location of where he was abducted, but because of the location of two suspects in his abduction. When suspects in one abduction are believed to have been in the location of another abduction several hundred miles away, but only two months later, it is something worth looking at, if only to be able to discount it. I know it is rare for people to target both boys and girls but reports have stated these two have links to other people like them, and they had apparently worked in holiday flats.

But as for the Mccanns being informed by police, several newspapers have reported this, kate McCann stated this in an interview, Clarence Mitchell confirmed it, and I think the police also stated this. I believe Birch did contact police about this, and it is normal for the police to let the family (meaning any family in this sort of situation) know of anything like this that is going to appeared in the news, so that they do not have to hear it from the media first. But as it has been state don national TV, it is not really a mystery as to how I know this, anyone in the UK who watched morning television was in a position to know this.

One thing that is interesting about Birch, is that if he is telling the truth about his activities, no-one noticed. I believe he was able to set up cameras watching the house, then at some point him and two other people (I think he had two people with him), were able to climb over the wall of the garden, along with a piece of rather hefty equipment and then stay there working for several hours without anyone noticing.

Just for the record, I am based in the UK, apart from the This Morning TV apperance, there was very little press coverage of the Stephen Birch claims, which is odd in the fact that we seem to have had plenty of sightings on the tabloids yet when a body is mentioned, we see almost nothing?

Regarding the TV appearance, i find it disconcerting to hear Kate McCann asking "who is this person"? in regard to Stephen Birch, wouldnt the obvious thought be to want the area searched (again) if there was even the slightest chance of a body being in the immediate vicinity of Madeleine's last known whereabouts. I can't see the same response being made if a jogger or a rambler found a body?

Really, you cannot state that there is not a shred of evidence, by simply rubbishing the forensics, they were found in the apartment, they were found in the hire car, whether or not they can be substantiated at this time is another matter, there was more than one dog involved in the searches as far as I remember and they did seem to come with quite a good reputation at the time, Isnt Martin Grimes working with the FBI now, I am pretty sure they wouldnt employ useless staff but that again is my opinion.

Regarding Yeremi Vargas, a 7 year old boy in a different country is hardly the same MO as a 3 year old girl, I can take your point that all leads are worth investigating on order to eliminate them ( shall we go back to the Stephen Birch claim now?) but that means that every abduction would have to be investigated across half the world.

You seem to keep implying that I am accusing the McCanns of killing their daughter, I havent implied that or stated that, what I am stating is that actions seem to be at odds to words in this case, it seems that there is an element of trying to force apoint of view here that It happened a certain way, the facts are that there is no evidence of an abduction just as much as there is no evidence of murder or harm coming to the child, while that is the case, then all options should be considered, not just one persons view.

If we are ever to see a resolution to this sad case, the investigating Police force should investigate the case, the case is not active and there is a simple way to reopen the case, yet that option is not being taken, why is that?

Just for clarity, if my child had gone missing, I wouldnt be spending money on legal teams trying to stop people talking, I would be spending that money on doing everything I could to find my child, I would put everything on hold until I had exhausted every option and every penny to find an answer, I wouldnt be interested in helping other children I would want to help my child and I would never give up until time ran out, but thats just me!

 

[brit1981]

nnnnnn

Just for the record, I am based in the UK, apart from the This Morning TV apperance, there was very little press coverage of the Stephen Birch claims, which is odd in the fact that we seem to have had plenty of sightings on the tabloids yet when a body is mentioned, we see almost nothing?
Because i think Birch is taken to be unreliable (if he had evidence a body could be buried there he should have gone to the police and left the with it, not gone climbing over walls investigating himself).

Regarding the TV appearance, i find it disconcerting to hear Kate McCann asking "who is this person"? in regard to Stephen Birch, wouldnt the obvious thought be to want the area searched (again) if there was even the slightest chance of a body being in the immediate vicinity of Madeleine's last known whereabouts. I can't see the same response being made if a jogger or a rambler found a body?

First Birch did not find a body, he claims to have gone onto property and made a scan which he says is a body. If the McCanns have been informed by police that soem random guy was hopping over walls scanning areas already searched, why would the Mccanns decide they want the area searched again. I would assume the police have more information than the general public. And "who is this person" is a very good question, Birch is just some nobody who claims to have information which made him suspicious of this area - how on earth did he come by this, and why keep it to himself until he had done the search. By breaking in and searching himself he would ahve wrecked the investigation, so any intelligent person would have handed the information to the police.

Really, you cannot state that there is not a shred of evidence, by simply rubbishing the forensics, they were found in the apartment, they were found in the hire car, whether or not they can be substantiated at this time is another matter, there was more than one dog involved in the searches as far as I remember and they did seem to come with quite a good reputation at the time, Isnt Martin Grimes working with the FBI now, I am pretty sure they wouldnt employ useless staff but that again is my opinion.

there were no forensics that need to be rubbished. The one dog Eddie was an EVRD trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as cadaver scent, and the other dog was trained to alert to blood. There is no way of telling what the EVRD was alerting to, and since there had been at leats one incident of serious bleeding in the flat (previous occupant claimed to have bled for forty five minutes), both dogs could have alerted to that. grimes claims they are very sensitive. I do not think Grimes is working with the FBI now, I think the dogs cannot work in the UK now (at least not for the police). But Eddie did alert in jersey and the material turned out to be a coconut shell, and Grimes does state that Eddie alerts to bodily fluids like dried blood.
In the car the dogs alerted to the card fob, but this had material that belonged to Gerry (one profile matching his components). The material in the boot was some sort of bodily fluid, but the DNA showed it came from three to five people, and whilst fifteen of madeleine's nineteen different components were there, these components were not identified as coming from one person and coudl just as easily have come from kate and Gerry (or even been contributed to by any of madeleine's relatives). So even if it did contain blood, it could have come from Gerry etc.

Regarding Yeremi Vargas, a 7 year old boy in a different country is hardly the same MO as a 3 year old girl, I can take your point that all leads are worth investigating on order to eliminate them ( shall we go back to the Stephen Birch claim now?) but that means that every abduction would have to be investigated across half the world.

Only if there was a connection. Two british suspects were in Gran canaria either working as or posing as workers for holiday flats when a child disappeared. two months later these same suspects were several hundred miles away in the rough area another child was abducted. Think of peter Tobin and Robert Black they abducted their vistis hundreds of miles apart. It may just be a coincidence, but it shoudl be looked at.

You seem to keep implying that I am accusing the McCanns of killing their daughter, I havent implied that or stated that, what I am stating is that actions seem to be at odds to words in this case, it seems that there is an element of trying to force apoint of view here that It happened a certain way, the facts are that there is no evidence of an abduction just as much as there is no evidence of murder or harm coming to the child, while that is the case, then all options should be considered, not just one persons view.

i think it is fine to consider views, but many seem to be basing these views on out and out lies, or distortions (like the "sixty facts" leaflet, which is full of rubbish). Look at the way people have claimed the fifteen components mean it is more than likely Madeleine's DNA. This is just not the case, and is a major misrepresentation of the facts.

If we are ever to see a resolution to this sad case, the investigating Police force should investigate the case, the case is not active and there is a simple way to reopen the case, yet that option is not being taken, why is that?

The Portugues police say they need new evidence, but the Portugues police are reviewing the case.

Just for clarity, if my child had gone missing, I wouldnt be spending money on legal teams trying to stop people talking, I would be spending that money on doing everything I could to find my child, I would put everything on hold until I had exhausted every option and every penny to find an answer, I wouldnt be interested in helping other children I would want to help my child and I would never give up until time ran out, but thats just me!

As for legal costs in the UK these were met by no-win no fee arrangements (and they do have two other children, and they should not have to put up with people descending on their home to spread bile) and in Portugal the arrangement for fees has not been clarified, but as they are trying to stop someone who is telling people she is dead and hindering the search it is worth doing in my case. besides if they win the other side will likely have to pay compensation to the fund as well as costs. But the McCanns have spent a lot of investigators, and rasing awareness. They also petitioned to have scotland yard review the case. They have done a lot to find her.

 

[badhorsie]

Apparently it is normal for intrudors to make a second escape route as soon as they enter a property.

Snipped

Could you provide a link or somesuch for this assertation please? I would be interested to read about "normal intruder behaviour"

This is another thing that has always struck me as odd. Why would the abductor walk in with ease yet leave through a window when carrying a small, apparently sleeping, child. How could s/he do this and leave no traces around the window frame?

 

[Cappuccino]

Regarding Yeremi Vargas, a 7 year old boy in a different country is hardly the same MO as a 3 year old girl, I can take your point that all leads are worth investigating on order to eliminate them ( shall we go back to the Stephen Birch claim now?) but that means that every abduction would have to be investigated across half the world.

For the third time - the reason that particular abduction is relevant is BECAUSE TWO OF THE SUSPECTS IN THAT CASE WERE IN THE VICINITY AT THE TIME MADELIENE DISAPPEARED. And no, that doesn't apply to every abduction across half the world.

 

[fabgod]

Originally Posted by fabgod View Post
Just for the record, I am based in the UK, apart from the This Morning TV apperance, there was very little press coverage of the Stephen Birch claims, which is odd in the fact that we seem to have had plenty of sightings on the tabloids yet when a body is mentioned, we see almost nothing?

Because i think Birch is taken to be unreliable (if he had evidence a body could be buried there he should have gone to the police and left the with it, not gone climbing over walls investigating himself).

You think? thats not really worth much is it? If there is a possibility that there is a body there and there is supporting evidence, then it should be investigated and should be pushed by the parents without doubt

Regarding the TV appearance, i find it disconcerting to hear Kate McCann asking "who is this person"? in regard to Stephen Birch, wouldnt the obvious thought be to want the area searched (again) if there was even the slightest chance of a body being in the immediate vicinity of Madeleine's last known whereabouts. I can't see the same response being made if a jogger or a rambler found a body?

First Birch did not find a body, he claims to have gone onto property and made a scan which he says is a body. If the McCanns have been informed by police that soem random guy was hopping over walls scanning areas already searched, why would the Mccanns decide they want the area searched again. I would assume the police have more information than the general public. And "who is this person" is a very good question, Birch is just some nobody who claims to have information which made him suspicious of this area - how on earth did he come by this, and why keep it to himself until he had done the search. By breaking in and searching himself he would ahve wrecked the investigation, so any intelligent person would have handed the information to the police.

I'm starting to find your responses a little disappointing now, Just a nobody? do you have to be someone to find Madeleine? If I was to find her living next door to me, would I be discounted because I was a nobody and not intelligent as you have accused Mr Birch of being?
Incredible thought process imo
Why not keep the information to himself, just for a moment, take off your McCann glasses and think that this guy, is thousands of miles away, if, he is genuine (and I am not saying he is or isn't),
If he had no faith in the forces involved (same as the McCanns wth the PJ)
Would it not be rational to think "I will get as much proof as possible so as to not get discounted"

Really, you cannot state that there is not a shred of evidence, by simply rubbishing the forensics, they were found in the apartment, they were found in the hire car, whether or not they can be substantiated at this time is another matter, there was more than one dog involved in the searches as far as I remember and they did seem to come with quite a good reputation at the time, Isnt Martin Grimes working with the FBI now, I am pretty sure they wouldnt employ useless staff but that again is my opinion.

there were no forensics that need to be rubbished. The one dog Eddie was an EVRD trained to alert to bodily fluids as well as cadaver scent, and the other dog was trained to alert to blood. There is no way of telling what the EVRD was alerting to, and since there had been at leats one incident of serious bleeding in the flat (previous occupant claimed to have bled for forty five minutes), both dogs could have alerted to that. grimes claims they are very sensitive. I do not think Grimes is working with the FBI now, I think the dogs cannot work in the UK now (at least not for the police). But Eddie did alert in jersey and the material turned out to be a coconut shell, and Grimes does state that Eddie alerts to bodily fluids like dried blood.
In the car the dogs alerted to the card fob, but this had material that belonged to Gerry (one profile matching his components). The material in the boot was some sort of bodily fluid, but the DNA showed it came from three to five people, and whilst fifteen of madeleine's nineteen different components were there, these components were not identified as coming from one person and coudl just as easily have come from kate and Gerry (or even been contributed to by any of madeleine's relatives). So even if it did contain blood, it could have come from Gerry etc.

No, you are wrong, there were forensics that were tested, these forensics were alerted to by the dogs you are so keen to discredit, If the forensics still exist, there is no reason why technological advances at some time in the future, might not be able to extract further information from.

Regarding Yeremi Vargas, a 7 year old boy in a different country is hardly the same MO as a 3 year old girl, I can take your point that all leads are worth investigating on order to eliminate them ( shall we go back to the Stephen Birch claim now?) but that means that every abduction would have to be investigated across half the world.

Only if there was a connection. Two british suspects were in Gran canaria either working as or posing as workers for holiday flats when a child disappeared. two months later these same suspects were several hundred miles away in the rough area another child was abducted. Think of peter Tobin and Robert Black they abducted their vistis hundreds of miles apart. It may just be a coincidence, but it shoudl be looked at.

Yes if there is a link, then it should be investigated, but to start implicating missing persons from all over Europe would be too costly and too time consuming.
In a perfect world, finances would not be an issue, but unfortunately the suspects you mention are tenuous at best at this time

You seem to keep implying that I am accusing the McCanns of killing their daughter, I havent implied that or stated that, what I am stating is that actions seem to be at odds to words in this case, it seems that there is an element of trying to force apoint of view here that It happened a certain way, the facts are that there is no evidence of an abduction just as much as there is no evidence of murder or harm coming to the child, while that is the case, then all options should be considered, not just one persons view.

i think it is fine to consider views, but many seem to be basing these views on out and out lies, or distortions (like the "sixty facts" leaflet, which is full of rubbish). Look at the way people have claimed the fifteen components mean it is more than likely Madeleine's DNA. This is just not the case, and is a major misrepresentation of the facts.


I really don't think you are in a position to state a major representation of the facts, Whatever the Madeleine foundation put out is not anything to do with the investigation and that is what we are here to be discussing, the whole point of a forum like this is to try and find answers, to my mind, you are not really interested in considering views, you simply want to discredit anything that goes against your stance, as I stated above, that isn'tmy perception of this forums purpose.

We can argue back and forth forever, but in a case with such little evidence as this has, everything has to be considered, whether it be Dogs, forensics, statements, anything, because somewhere, there will be a clue that leads to a conclusion

If we are ever to see a resolution to this sad case, the investigating Police force should investigate the case, the case is not active and there is a simple way to reopen the case, yet that option is not being taken, why is that?

The Portugues police say they need new evidence, but the Portugues police are reviewing the case.

You cannot get evidence if you do not search and as mentioned before, there is Stephen Birchs' claims and there is an opportunity for the McCanns to work with the Portuguese PJ and request re-opening the case

Just for clarity, if my child had gone missing, I wouldnt be spending money on legal teams trying to stop people talking, I would be spending that money on doing everything I could to find my child, I would put everything on hold until I had exhausted every option and every penny to find an answer, I wouldnt be interested in helping other children I would want to help my child and I would never give up until time ran out, but thats just me!

As for legal costs in the UK these were met by no-win no fee arrangements (and they do have two other children, and they should not have to put up with people descending on their home to spread bile) and in Portugal the arrangement for fees has not been clarified, but as they are trying to stop someone who is telling people she is dead and hindering the search it is worth doing in my case. besides if they win the other side will likely have to pay compensation to the fund as well as costs. But the McCanns have spent a lot of investigators, and rasing awareness. They also petitioned to have scotland yard review the case. They have done a lot to find her.

I totally agree that people should not have to put up with incidents such as you are describing, there is no defence for that and no need for that,
There is another way to confront this sort of action without resorting to suing and that is to involve the police, let them do their job and bring the offenders to book there really doesnt have to be a "Carter Ruck" type of company involved does there?
Surely, the families time would be better served in looking for their missing daughter, or am I getting that wrong?

 

[brit1981]

Snipped

Could you provide a link or somesuch for this assertation please? I would be interested to read about "normal intruder behaviour"

This is another thing that has always struck me as odd. Why would the abductor walk in with ease yet leave through a window when carrying a small, apparently sleeping, child. How could s/he do this and leave no traces around the window frame?

http://www.halifax.co.uk/insurance/protectyourhomefromburglarys/

http://www.lloydstsb.com/insurance/home/protectyourhome.asp

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/ne...g-coventry-police-cut-crime-92746-30700563/2/

These are just three accounts talking about escape routes, but I have seen it in several places before. I suppose it is common sense to make sure you can get out quickly if you are disturbed.

No-one knows if Madeleine was taken out by the window, but unidentified fingerprints were found on it (and if you look in the police files the photos of the window do not sure anything like lichen that could be disturbed, just a plain windowsill). It could be that an intruder came in an opened the window as a possible escape route if they were disturbed, but in the end did not need it and just walked out of the front door.

 

[brit1981]

I totally agree that people should not have to put up with incidents such as you are describing, there is no defence for that and no need for that,
There is another way to confront this sort of action without resorting to suing and that is to involve the police, let them do their job and bring the offenders to book there really doesnt have to be a "Carter Ruck" type of company involved does there?
Surely, the families time would be better served in looking for their missing daughter, or am I getting that wrong?

They did not actually sue, he was just asked by the courts to agree not to behave like this again. I think that is nicer than giving the guy a criminal record. the family has spent their time looking, in so much as they have hired investiagtors, highlighted the disappearence and age progressions, and have succeeded in getting scotland yard to review the case. There is not much else they can do.

 

[brit1981]

You think? thats not really worth much is it? If there is a possibility that there is a body there and there is supporting evidence, then it should be investigated and should be pushed by the parents without doubt

I disagree, the parents know the area was already searched by police, they are being kept informed of the situation by police. let them take scotland yard's advice, not that of some random guy. If the police have told them the guy is unreliable, that there is nothing there then they have no reason to ignore them.


I'm starting to find your responses a little disappointing now, Just a nobody? do you have to be someone to find Madeleine? If I was to find her living next door to me, would I be discounted because I was a nobody and not intelligent as you have accused Mr Birch of being?
Incredible thought process imo.

Birch is a nobody as far as this case is concerned. he has seen no more information than anyone with the internet, and not therefore all the information. yet he decided he knew exactly where madeleine was buried and broke the law to conduct a search. he is no better than any nutcase trying to make themself a part of the case. Wy shoudl the mccanns listen to him over scotland yard just to prove a point to stranger son the internet

Why not keep the information to himself, just for a moment, take off your McCann glasses and think that this guy, is thousands of miles away, if, he is genuine (and I am not saying he is or isn't),
If he had no faith in the forces involved (same as the McCanns wth the PJ)
Would it not be rational to think "I will get as much proof as possible so as to not get discounted"
But his actions would have discounted any evidence he would have found. He had plenty of people he could have gone to -PJ, scotland yard, the mccanns. he coudl also have gone to the media


No, you are wrong, there were forensics that were tested, these forensics were alerted to by the dogs you are so keen to discredit, If the forensics still exist, there is no reason why technological advances at some time in the future, might not be able to extract further information from.

No I am right, there were no forensics found against the mccanns. The dogs alerts to bodily fluids and cadaver scent, and the other one alerts to blood. Bodily fluids were found where they alerted, and someone had bled for forty-five minutes in the weeks before the mccanns were there. maybe in the future they might find something more, but now there is nothing forensic against the mccanns. At the moment all we can say is that there were tiny amounts of bodily fluids, that may have been blood found in a flat where someone bled.

Yes if there is a link, then it should be investigated, but to start implicating missing persons from all over Europe would be too costly and too time consuming.
In a perfect world, finances would not be an issue, but unfortunately the suspects you mention are tenuous at best at this time

No-one is implicating missing persons from all over Europe. i am saying if a major link, like suspects, connected to two missing people's cases hundreds of miles apart it is worth looking more closely.


I really don't think you are in a position to state a major representation of the facts, Whatever the Madeleine foundation put out is not anything to do with the investigation and that is what we are here to be discussing, the whole point of a forum like this is to try and find answers, to my mind, you are not really interested in considering views, you simply want to discredit anything that goes against your stance, as I stated above, that isn'tmy perception of this forums purpose.

Well as I have read the madeleine foundation's material I am in a position to say it is a load of incorrect and misrepresentitive bile.

I am not discrediting things because I disagree with it, I do not believe it because it can be easily discredited.


You cannot get evidence if you do not search and as mentioned before, there is Stephen Birchs' claims and there is an opportunity for the McCanns to work with the Portuguese PJ and request re-opening the case.

But birch has told the PJ of his findings, and if they have discounted it then it is not new evidence. The Mccanns can request until they are blue in the face, but if the Pj do not consider it evidence they will not reopen the case. they have done well to get the Portuguese to review the case. I agree with the fact it is an odd position to state we will not look for new evidence unless we get new evidence