Madeleine McCann

flasher0030

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

callmehal wrote: »

It's obviously more likely that the peado did it. But that stuff you listed isn't evidence. Some of the list below is nonsense too but way more on the McCanns as of now.

I'm confused. First you're saying that more than likely the kid was abducted and the parents weren't involved. But straight after you're saying that there is more "evidence" that the parents did something untoward. And I use the term evidence here very loosely, as there is a huge gap in what certain peoples categorisation of what evidence actually is versus actions/items that purport towards deemed suspicious behaviour.

Are you saying that despite the German policeforce deeming that they have enough evidence to be sure that Christian Bruenkner did it, that based on your listing of "evidence", that you are more suspicious of the parents or that even if you're not suspicious, that it points more towards the parents having done it.

Banana Republic.

callmehal wrote: »

1. All five markers in a sample found under the tiles, behind the sofa (exactly where Eddie, the EVRD [Cadaver] dog and Keela, the CSI [Human Blood] dog, both indicated), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile

2. Fifteen of the markers, in a sample found under the luggage liner of the McCann's Scenic (hired 24 days later), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile

3. Shutters were not jemmied or forced, as claimed by the parents

4. No signs of forced entry anywhere in the apartment

5. No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window, including:

6. No Lichen disturbance

7. No Fibres

8. No Finger prints of abductor

9. No footprints on bed

10. Only finger prints on the window are those of Kate



DOGS

11. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the McCann's wardrobe in 5A

12. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A

13. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the veranda outside the parent?s bedroom

14. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the flower bed at the back of 5A

15. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a white sleeveless top belonging to Kate

16. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to checked trousers belonging to Kate

17. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a child?s red T shirt

18. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a toy belonging to Madeleine

19. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's rental Scenic car

20. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the passenger's door of the McCann's Renault Scenic

21. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A (exact same spot as alerted to by the EVRD dog)

22. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's hire car

23. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the interior of the hire vehicle's boot


TANNER SIGHTING

The only perceived evidence of abduction, being the sighting by Jane Tanner at around 21.15 is riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting testimonies, being the fact that

24. None of the scent tracking Search & Rescue dogs followed that trail, and in fact followed another trail completely

25. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to spot the ?abductor?, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Gerry

26. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to see Jane Tanner walking by, despite being on the same narrow sidewalk at the same time

27. Gerry himself failed to spot the abductor, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Jeremy

28. Gerry contradicted Jeremy by stating that their chat was on the opposite side of the road from that as described, and drawn on a map, by Mr Wilkins

29. Gerry also contradicted Tanner, by stating that his chat with Jeremy was on the opposite side of the road from that mentioned by Jane

30. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.15

31. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine?s bedroom while walking from her apartment at 21.20

32. Jane never bumped into Jeremy Wilkins (who had walked back to his apartment after the chat with Gerry) while walking back from her apartment at 21.20

33. Russell O'Brien failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment at 21.30

34. Matthew Oldfield failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment, which was right next door, at 21.30

35. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains while checking on Madeleine and the twins

36. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking from his apartment back to the Tapas at around 21.35

37. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.45

38. Russell failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking back from his apartment at 21.50

39. Tanner's description has changed several times

40. It makes no sense, especially if (as the McCann's claim) that this was a well planned abduction, that the abductor walks across the very road used by the parents to check on their children

41... The abductor failed to hear either Tanner, Gerry or Wilkins, and continued on the path that would put him in the full vision of all three

42... If the abductor had lifted Madeleine out of the bed, then he would be carrying with her head to his right hand side, not on the left as in Tanner's claimed sighting


SMITH SIGHTING

43. The Smith family (independent witnesses) sighting has, with the exception of one brief mention two years later, been completely ignored by the McCann's and their private detectives from day one (no e-fit / press conference / media onslaught) despite the fact that?

44. There was huge publicity given to the Tanner sighting, including the pressure put on the Portuguese authorities to get the details out there

45. The Smith family descriptions have never changed

46. The sighting was only minutes before the 'alarm' was raised

47. The sighting was only 250 metres from the apartment

48. This sighting would have explained many of the inconsistencies of the Tanner sighting as mentioned above

49. There were several members of the family who witnessed this man carrying a child

50. The general area and timing of the sighting made by the family can be corroborated by a restaurant receipt for that evening

51. The general description of the man could fit Gerry McCann

52. The description of the child matches Madeleine

53. The type of trousers match those possessed by Gerry

54. Trousers match in terms of colour

55. Trousers even match in terms of the visible buttons as mentioned by one of the family

56. Martin and his wife later identified the carrier, through the distinctive carrying style, as being Gerry McCann


Given much of the above, the remarkable coincidence that?

57. The pressure put on the PJ to highlight the Tanner sighting came at exactly the same time as the Smith family were being brought back to Portugal to go over the sighting in more detail

58. The sighting was in a different part of town from the Tanner sighting

59. It was also heading in a completely different direction

60. The carrying style was completely different to that of the Tanner sighting

61. And yet the McCann's deliberately altered the Smith sighting carrying style so as to match that of the Tanner sighting, during the only ever significant mention of the sighting, in a McCann made reconstruction aired only a few days after Amaral's (in which he included the Smith sighting)

62. They also tried to morph the carrier into the same man as seen by Tanner, despite significant differences in descriptions


BEHAVIOURAL

There are many instances of strange behaviour from the McCann's, not being consistent with parents of a child abducted by paedophiles, including (but not limited to)?

63. Kate complaining about the speed of a police vehicle while being take to look into a new lead at PJ HQ (sighting caught on CCTV)

64. Gerry laughing and joking and sucking lollipops while one of the most significant abduction leads came to a climax

65. Very little mention of the huge award available over the last three years

66. Despite raising millions through their fund, and spending thousands on media monitoring, they continue to charge for travel kits and for printing off posters designed to help find their daughter

67. Lack of physical searching during the first few days

68. Lack of physically handing out leaflets / putting up posters themselves

69. Hiring cowboy private detectives with no expertise or experience in finding children

70. Gerry smirking when asked by a Sky News presenter how he feels when someone comes forward who is certain that they have seen Madeleine

71. When up to 14 possible sightings of Madeleine emerged in Malta, resulting in a huge police operation including Interpol, the McCann's hot footed it to Germany for more TV plugs

72. When the most promising sighting of all was made in Belgium, a 110% certain sighting by a child therapist, considered so credible by authorities that they despatched a forensics team, the McCanns went looking in Huelva, Spain

73. Gerry's initial claim, as overheard by another holidaymaker, within minutes of the alarm being raised, that Madeleine had been taken by paedophiles. How did he know that?

74. Gerry caught on Camera laughing his head off only a few days after his daughter had been abducted by paedophiles as claimed by the parents

75. Despite refuting the claims of the dogs / Scenic findings, the McCann's continued to submit ridiculous reasoning for them, including Sea bass, sweat, dirty nappies, rubbish en-route to dump, rotten meat, and attending to 6 bodies before the holiday, amongst others

76. Kate refusing to answer 48 police questions

77. The McCann's and their holiday friends all refusing to attend a police reconstruction

78. Despite the Madeleine's disappearance looking like an inside job from the outset, the McCann's and their friends were happy enough returning their children to the MW creche just hours later, despite not knowing if any of the staff were involved

79. When Kate raised the alarm, she ran back to the table, leaving the twins in the apartment while not knowing whether the abductor(s) were still onsite

80. Kate shouting They've taken her!?, not distinguishing between Madeleine and her sister Amelie


STATEMENT INCONSISTENCIES

90. When describing Madeleine sleeping that night, Kate said she was under the covers where as Gerry mentioned that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal

91. Matthew Oldfield initially claimed that Kate and the children were at the tennis courts when he arrived there at 18.30 where as the rest of the Tapas 9 claim otherwise

92. David Payne's 18.30 / 18.40 check on Kate (last person out with the parents to see Madeleine) : According to Kate the sliding door was closed, and that David didn't actually enter the apartment, remaining at the door. But according to David, the door was open and he definitely entered the apartment.

93. Matt Oldfield chivvying up the Payne's at 21.00 : Matt claims he passed them near the top of the road, but David claims to have passed him by the swimming pool, Fiona claims to have passed him outside 5A, and Dianne Webster initially claimed that Matthew wasn't even there.

94. Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child. He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. However, according to Jane Tanner it's three o' clock in the morning when she informs Gerry McCann for the first time


OTHER

95. Various other possible withheld evidence as hinted at, including intercepted phone calls / text messages

96. Independent witness statement (from McCann neighbour) regarding the luggage door of the McCann's hire vehicle being open morning, noon and night

97. Gerry's missing hold-all / tennis / kit bag which he was seen with the day Madeleine disappeared cannot be located by detectives

98. Gaspar (UK GPs) statements detailing concerns about the father and one of his friends on holiday with them

99. Yvonne Martin (Social Worker) statement regarding concerns about the same friend

100. This same friend calls the Metropolitan Police Crime Specialist Director (a number which is also used as the out of hours contact for the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Team) 24 hours after the alarm

Bravo, thats a fascinating read If we go with the suspicions on the parents. In that case the parents drugged all the kids and had set up Madeline to be taken as they couldn’t cope with her anymore or they are themselves involved in the child trade ( a possibility if they had their daughter abducted so only going through the scenario I’m not saying it happened) this would match why the twins didn’t wake up with all the ppl in the apartment and everything that was going on, Kate could confidently go raise the alarm whilst leaving the twins as she knew they wouldn’t wake and the abductor was gone. This would match with why Gerry never looked inside the apt on his last check. It would match the guy spotted by the Smyths carrying a child lifeless or heavily sedated. If all of this was to be true then Madeline could turn up alive one day or if she is dead then surely they know where her body is so need to be tracked if they go anywhere on holiday more then once. There’s are all if they were involved. Playing devils advocate obviously. Plenty matches here do you understand why ppl can have these conclusions about the parents.

Banana Republic.

flasher0030 wrote: »

I'm confused. First you're saying that more than likely the kid was abducted and the parents weren't involved. But straight after you're saying that there is more "evidence" that the parents did something untoward. And I use the term evidence here very loosely, as there is a huge gap in what certain peoples categorisation of what evidence actually is versus actions/items that purport towards deemed suspicious behaviour.

Are you saying that despite the German policeforce deeming that they have enough evidence to be sure that Christian Bruenkner did it, that based on your listing of "evidence", that you are more suspicious of the parents or that even if you're not suspicious, that it points more towards the parents having done it.

Both could be in cahoots too, don’t rule anything out in this utter weirdness that is this case.

Rock77

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Bravo, thats a fascinating read If we go with the suspicions on the parents. In that case the parents drugged all the kids and had set up Madeline to be taken as they couldn’t cope with her anymore or they are themselves involved in the child trade ( a possibility if they had their daughter abducted so only going through the scenario I’m not saying it happened) this would match why the twins didn’t wake up with all the ppl in the apartment and everything that was going on, Kate could confidently go raise the alarm whilst leaving the twins as she knew they wouldn’t wake and the abductor was gone. This would match with why Gerry never looked inside the apt on his last check. It would match the guy spotted by the Smyths carrying a child lifeless or heavily sedated. If all of this was to be true then Madeline could turn up alive one day or if she is dead then surely they know where her body is so need to be tracked if they go anywhere on holiday more then once. There’s are all if they were involved. Playing devils advocate obviously. Plenty matches here do you understand why ppl can have these conclusions about the parents.

I can go with the theory of they sedated her, overdosed her by accident and hid the body... well I can’t really but at least it’s in some way plausible..

However, the theory that they set everything up and organised someone to take their child..... there are no words I can use to describe.. that’s more than some 911 stuff right there.

And by the way that huge list of stuff, none of that is evidence that the parents were involved in the child’s disappearance

Banana Republic.

Rock77 wrote: »

I can go with the theory of they sedated her, overdosed her by accident and hid the body... well I can’t really but at least it’s in some way plausible..

However, the theory that they set everything up and organised someone to take their child..... there are no words I can use to describe.. that’s more than some 911 stuff right there.

And by the way that huge list of stuff, none of that is evidence that the parents were involved in the child’s disappearance

Okay so you can go with the part of hiding her body in that timeline, where the hell do they hide her body without local knowledge? Where do they hide it? It’s not been found in 13 years that’s a hell of a lucky first time act isn’t it? The have someone else involved isn’t that far fetched add to the fact they sought solace with That Freud character after, just adds to it don’t you think?

flasher0030

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Bravo, thats a fascinating read If we go with the suspicions on the parents. In that case the parents drugged all the kids and had set up Madeline to be taken as they couldn’t cope with her anymore or they are themselves involved in the child trade ( a possibility if they had their daughter abducted so only going through the scenario I’m not saying it happened) this would match why the twins didn’t wake up with all the ppl in the apartment and everything that was going on, Kate could confidently go raise the alarm whilst leaving the twins as she knew they wouldn’t wake and the abductor was gone. This would match with why Gerry never looked inside the apt on his last check. It would match the guy spotted by the Smyths carrying a child lifeless or heavily sedated. If all of this was to be true then Madeline could turn up alive one day or if she is dead then surely they know where her body is so need to be tracked if they go anywhere on holiday more then once. There’s are all if they were involved. Playing devils advocate obviously. Plenty matches here do you understand why ppl can have these conclusions about the parents.

I've read that post twice, and I presume you are saying this tongue in cheek. In a sarcastic manner. At least, I hope you are. Please tell me you're not being serious. For the love of God, and for everyone's mental wellbeing.

Rock77

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Okay so you can go with the part of hiding her body in that timeline, where the hell do they hide her body without local knowledge? Where do they hide it? It’s not been found in 13 years that’s a hell of a lucky first time act isn’t it? The have someone else involved isn’t that far fetched add to the fact they sought solace with That Freud character after, just adds to it don’t you think?

Firstly I said ‘well I can’t really go along with it’

As for Freud, I know nothing about him or the McCanns but I presume they met this guy on that holiday? How in gods name are they supposed to know about his past? I’m open to correction on that.

Seriously, this gets worse everyday, people actually believe the parents of a 3 year old little girl organised for her to be taken into a paedo ring!!!!!!!

limnam

Rock77 wrote: »

Firstly I said ‘well I can’t really go along with it’

As for Freud, I know nothing about him or the McCanns but I presume they met this guy on that holiday? How in gods name are they supposed to know about his past? I’m open to correction on that.

Seriously, this gets worse everyday, people actually believe the parents of a 3 year old little girl organised for her to be taken into a paedo ring!!!!!!!

AFAIK he called them and invited them for dinner out of the blue.

Apparently they had never met before it.

It is strange a pedo calling and inviting parents of a missing child over for fireside chat as he sat there in his dressing gown as they skulled brandy and laughed about the dogs.

These two couldn't be anymore bizzare if they tried.

flasher0030

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Rock77 wrote: »

Firstly I said ‘well I can’t really go along with it’

As for Freud, I know nothing about him or the McCanns but I presume they met this guy on that holiday? How in gods name are they supposed to know about his past? I’m open to correction on that.

Seriously, this gets worse everyday, people actually believe the parents of a 3 year old little girl organised for her to be taken into a paedo ring!!!!!!!

Unbelievable. That's twisted.
Freud was a politician and writer, had holiday home over there. Was from the UK. Wrote to the family after the disappearance of their kid to invite them to lunch or dinner. This was after the event. It wasn't until some years later that he was exposed for wrongdoings. But then again, if BananaRepublic is being serious, he could consider them part of a Paedo ring in association with all these paedos. And decided to trade their daughter.
That is seriously sick. How could one (i.e. BananaRepublic) possibly even think that's a possibility.

limnam

flasher0030 wrote: »

Unbelievable. That's twisted.
Freud was a politician and writer, had holiday home over there. Was from the UK. Wrote to the family after the disappearance of their kid to invite them to lunch or dinner. This was after the event. It wasn't until some years later that he was exposed for wrongdoings. But then again, if BananaRepublic is being serious, he could consider them part of a Paedo ring in association with all these paedos. And decided to trade their daughter.
That is seriously sick. How could one (i.e. BananaRepublic) possibly even think that's a possibility.

It's not like he's advocating it as a lifestyle choice.

Rock77

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

AFAIK he called them and invited them for dinner out of the blue.

Apparently they had never met before it.

It is strange a pedo calling and inviting parents of a missing child over for fireside chat as he sat there in his dressing gown as they skulled brandy and laughed about the dogs.

These two couldn't be anymore bizzare if they tried.

You just can’t help yourself can you. Can’t just ‘shoot the breeze’ without all the bias, making things up, trying to paint a picture.

I just looked this guy up, apparently he’s a well known British broadcaster and politician. So not strange on the McCanns part that he would invite them out.

A fireside chat in his dressing gown laughing about the dogs.... they skulled brandy did they?

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Just for some irrelevant context.

Freud was not known to be a pedophile at the time, so the McCanns had no reasons to be suspicious of him.

However, there is no excuse whatsoever for the McCanns not to have been psychic or to have not slaughtered a chicken and studied it's entrails in order to be able to see into the future to a time when it would be known Freud was a pedophile.

Personally I prefer science, so whenever I receive an invitation to drinks or a meal, I hop into my time machine and zip forward 20 years and then do a search of the last 20 years worth of news articles to see if my potential host is dodgy or not, then I zip back to the present time and usually go to dinner.

Why the McCann's failed to follow this simple protocol, or to buy a chicken, I can't imagine. I find their failure deeply suspicious.

limnam

Rock77 wrote: »

You just can’t help yourself can you. Can’t just ‘shoot the breeze’ without all the bias, making things up, trying to paint a picture.

I just looked this guy up, apparently he’s a well known British broadcaster and politician. So not strange on the McCanns part that he would invite them out.

A fireside chat in his dressing gown laughing about the dogs.... they skulled brandy did they?

He's a pedophile.

He invited the parents of a missing child to his holiday home.

He sat there in his dressing grown while they drank brandy and laghed about the dogs.

I don't understand how you providing us with his profession changes the facts.

If you want to keep calling me out for making things up and refusing to see very odd behaviour where it's clear as bloody day.

That's your choice

I'm not saying it means they killed anyone

or that they've anything to do with a pedo ring

but this is what happned

and it's fcking odd.

No two ways about it.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

Limnam, I’ve asked you before but can you quote the part in her book where “they laughed about the dogs”..
You rhyme it off in nearly every post now so I’m guessing it should be no bother for you to support this with the actual text of what she wrote.

Rock77

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

He's a pedophile.

He invited the parents of a missing child to his holiday home.

He sat there in his dressing grown while they drank brandy and laghed about the dogs.

I don't understand how you providing us with his profession changes the facts.

If you want to keep calling me out for making things up and refusing to see very odd behaviour where it's clear as bloody day.

That's your choice

I'm not saying it means they killed anyone

or that they've anything to do with a pedo ring

but this is what happned

and it's fcking odd.

No two ways about it.

But the guy never even had a complaint made against him until years after! Nobody knew he was a paedo..

Are you saying it was odd behaviour by Freud? Then yes I agree.

Are you saying it was odd behaviour by the McCanns? Then no it absolutely wasn’t .

By the way I just read what Kate said they did with Freud, brandy, dogs, etc. Do apologies I was mistaken and way over the top with you

limnam

Rock77 wrote: »

But the guy never even had a complaint made against him until years after! Nobody knew he was a paedo..

We don't know who knew what when. All we know is when it was public.

Rock77 wrote: »

Are you saying it was odd behaviour by Freud? Then yes I agree.

Are you saying it was odd behaviour by the McCanns? Then no it absolutely wasn’t .

By the way I just read what Kate said they did with Freud, brandy, dogs, etc. Do apologies I was mistaken and way over the top with you

What was odd was what they discussed. How she reacted to it etc

The fact he was a pedo sitting there in his dressing gown just makes it fcking bizzare.

Like everything surrounding these two

but it doesn't make them connected to the disappearance.

Still fcking odd though.

Kidchameleon

Ah comon people, dont feed it. Can we discuss the case & latest developments and leave the haters to it. Theres no point debating with someone about dogs, fridges, going drinking etc etc. You will never convince* them Haters gonna hate.

*they already know its bs anyway

Rock77

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

We don't know who knew what when. All we know is when it was public.



What was odd was what they discussed. How she reacted to it etc

The fact he was a pedo sitting there in his dressing gown just makes it fcking bizzare.

Like everything surrounding these two

but it doesn't make them connected to the disappearance.

Still fcking odd though.

If he was a Joe regular than rang them up one day and invited them out it would be bizarre.. but he was a ‘celebrity’

And again, there was never even a complaint against him until years after this.. not odd at all

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

We don't know who knew what when. All we know is when it was public.



What was odd was what they discussed. How she reacted to it etc

The fact he was a pedo sitting there in his dressing gown just makes it fcking bizzare.

Like everything surrounding these two

but it doesn't make them connected to the disappearance.

Still fcking odd though.

And how did she react?
The fact that he was a paedophile wasn’t known for years later. You keep misrepresenting facts to try and shoehorn a particular narrative. It’s very transparent though.
Also the fact that he was wearing a dressing gown is no reflection on them so I’m not sure why this is lumped in with “their odd behaviour”..

It’s gas how you read so much into things like this, constantly twisting and misrepresenting events yet dismiss a convicted pedo bragging about knowing what happened to Madeleine as “a fella chatting shlt in a pub”.

Now that’s fcuking odd.

limnam

Rock77 wrote: »

If he was a Joe regular than rang them up one day and invited them out it would be bizarre.. but he was a ‘celebrity’

And again, there was never even a complaint against him until years after this.. not odd at all

Regardless if it was mother theresa.

Her reaction to the discussion is what makes it bizzare.

retro:electro

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Regardless if it was mother theresa.

Her reaction to the discussion is what makes it bizzare.

What was her reaction?

MonsterCookie

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

The German prosecutor has only talked about 1 phone call in the area an hour before she was discovered missing. that call started around the time the t9 were gathering for their meal.

Perhaps there are other phone calls and they don't want to say as it would jeopardise the case they are building. Not unreasonable or all that unlikely.

it's also reasonable to say that due to conflicting and changing accounts from the T9, that the times given for checking the apartment may not be fully accurate, so an abductor may have had plenty more time.

in fact, there was a retired investigator working for CBS News (spoke Portuguese which he says helped) went under cover in the Ocean Club after the disappearance and he says the staff were quite openly saying that the T9 were not checking the kids.

given that CB was forensically aware and may have had a look out on the phone keeping watch, it would seem to me that all he had to do was stroll in and take her. as someone else said, into a car and away.

flasher0030

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

We don't know who knew what when. All we know is when it was public.



What was odd was what they discussed. How she reacted to it etc

The fact he was a pedo sitting there in his dressing gown just makes it fcking bizzare.

Like everything surrounding these two

but it doesn't make them connected to the disappearance.

Still fcking odd though.

The situation you are on about was their second meeting. I think it was the case that Freud welcomed them at the door. Made a tongue in cheek comment about what the tabloids were saying about Kate. They had food (nothing suspicious). Had a brandy afterwards (nothing suspicious). Kate/Gerry were on about the accusations against them, dog scents etc. (nothing suspicious). And Freud made a comment like - what are they going to do. Put the dogs on the stand and have one bark for yes and 2 barks for no (nothing suspicious re the McCanns anyway). Where is this suspicious odd behaviour. And bear in mind before you repeat yourself, that he wasn't publicly outed as a paedophile until years later.

Rock77

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Regardless if it was mother theresa.

Her reaction to the discussion is what makes it bizzare.

Sorry I’m kind of playing catch up.. what was her reaction? I read an extract from the book a few minutes ago but it didn’t really talk about her reaction..?

limnam

MonsterCookie wrote: »

he says the staff were quite openly saying that the T9 were not checking the kids.

The most believable bit of hearsay on the thread

limnam

Rock77 wrote: »

Sorry I’m kind of playing catch up.. what was her reaction? I read an extract from the book a few minutes ago but it didn’t really talk about her reaction..?

Read it again. It's there in black and white.

flasher0030

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Read it again. It's there in black and white.

What was her reaction? I can't find it anywhere either.

Rock77

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Read it again. It's there in black and white.

Why so dismissive, I’m in the middle of listening to you and trying to take on board your point.. your whole point is based on how she reacted? I and another poster can’t find how she reacted, you obviously know because you found it odd ??

Banana Republic.

Rock77 wrote: »

Firstly I said ‘well I can’t really go along with it’

As for Freud, I know nothing about him or the McCanns but I presume they met this guy on that holiday? How in gods name are they supposed to know about his past? I’m open to correction on that.

Seriously, this gets worse everyday, people actually believe the parents of a 3 year old little girl organised for her to be taken into a paedo ring!!!!!!!

If you read my post I’m exploring if they did it and going from there, that’s the run of how things would have to happen. Everything is a possibility as gruesome as we see it. Look at the caretaker guy who killed the two girls, look at that sick dog who had his own daughter trapped under the house for over 20 years. These cases have happened, nobody wants it to be the parents but it has to be explored. So again read my post and I clearly say “if” and going on from that how could it be done.

MonsterCookie

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

The most believable bit of hearsay on the thread

depends on your outlook i guess.