Madeleine McCann

marklazarcovic

Yawn... Your only convincing yourself. You still can't comprehend other people think differently to you, there's a word for that...or a phrase,ahhh,who cares. You think what you will,and I'll do the same, nothing you say will affect me in any way shape or form, I'm defending nobody,nor accusing anyone of this crime,so to you ,I'm wrong.

Edit. In reply to retro

retro:electro

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

Rock77 wrote: »

COCONUTS!!

Take back your lies!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, you thanked a post that insinuated they deserved to have their child taken, when you were called out on it you refused to answer.. then you got all bum hurt because I wouldn’t let it go..

You still haven’t explained why you thanked it so I still think you agreed with the post

Don’t you find it funny how any perceived slight on the character of some posters has them screaming “take it back now!!” with such unadulterated petulance, all while expecting free reign to post the most baseless and nonsensical lies themselves and then put you on ignore when you ask for proof.
Be a good lad there rock and say sorry for lying so he can go back to posting his fabrications.

v638sg7k1a92bx

callmehal wrote: »

The dogs, lies, deleted phone records etc etc is not zero.

None of that is evidence.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

None of that is evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

v638sg7k1a92bx

OwlsZat wrote: »

Madeline didn't deserve what happened to her. There are a few possible reasons why she met an untimely end.

1. Being left alone unsupervised in an unlocked room
2. Being sedated (unconfirmed)
3. The proximity of active paedophiles

The crime could be a result of either a combination of 1 and 2 or 1, 2 and 3. Either way leaving Madeline alone in an unlocked apt contributed to her demise. She deserved better.

4. Alien abduction (unconfirmed)

retro:electro

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

callmehal wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Good old Wikipedia eh? Nice copy and paste jobby.

I feel like you’ve been practising saying that post for ages. Anyway it’s only circumstantial when it suits you. You dismissed a load of circumstantial evidence the other day from another poster because it didn’t suit you to see it as such but it was even more incriminating than any rubbish you have posted previously.
But sure look that’s just me being me I’m not “neutral” like you so I guess I just don’t get how this works from your POV.

Anyway I’m on ignore so lol.

v638sg7k1a92bx

callmehal wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Thank you for the explanation but it’s still not evidence. None of that would be admissible as evidence in a trial. None of it.

retro:electro

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

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Thank you for the copy and paste from Wikipedia

Fixed your post

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Thank you for the explanation but it’s still not evidence. None of that would be admissible as evidence in a trial. None of it.

This was succinctly explained earlier in the thread:

partyguinness wrote: »

Lads,

Don't confuse 'evidence' with proof.

Evidence is used to build a case which may or may not lead to proof beyond all reasonable doubt and conviction. Evidence is not taken in isolation and is part of an overall picture.

OwlsZat

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

Rock77 wrote: »

I agree with all of your post, however your original post was that the McCann PARENTS were not misfortunate that their daughter was TAKEN because they left the door unlocked.

You used your girlfriends stolen MacBook to compare the situations, you said she didn’t get any sympathy because she left the door unlocked.

I know them leaving their kids alone was a major contributor to Madelines disappearance.

Do you think all the other couples on that holiday that left their kids alone also were fortunate their kids weren’t taken?

Misfortunate would be to leave a child locked in the ir room and have her taken. The parents were negligent in their parental roles. IMHO they can't be negligent and misfortunate.

Boom_Bap

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

Hi Everybody, a friendly neighbourhood moderator here. Just popping in to this thread to let you know that there are a handful of posters here, probably everyone in the last 20 or 30 posts who are not actually discussing the subject of the thread, but discussing each other, taking shots at each other, backseat modding, generally being mean to each other, demanding answers, etc, etc, etc, etc.

That's no fun for anyone, and it's not really what the forum is for. Have a discussion about the topic, not about each other.
Be kind, group hug, take a breadth and post about the topic.

There, not so hard is it?

Rock77

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Misfortunate would be to leave a child locked in the ir room and have her taken. The parents were negligent in their parental roles. IMHO they can't be negligent and misfortunate.

Yeh I see your point.. still not sure I agree though.

For example, the other parents that were there, were they fortunate?

v638sg7k1a92bx

callmehal wrote: »

This was succinctly explained earlier in the thread:

It’s neither proof nor evidence.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It’s neither proof nor evidence.

It's circumstantial evidence.

retro:electro

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Misfortunate would be to leave a child locked in the ir room and have her taken. The parents were negligent in their parental roles. IMHO they can't be negligent and misfortunate.

It can be so that they were irresponsible for leaving the doors unlocked and misfortunate enough to be in a place so rampant with paedophiles that one took it upon himself to intrude into their home and take what wasn’t his. No one has any business to intrude on anyone’s personal space, unlocked or not, and help themselves to whatever they feel is ripe for the picking. A little child is gone, it is 13 years later and we still don’t know what happened to her, if that isn’t misfortune then what is?

limnam

OwlsZat wrote: »

Misfortunate would be to leave a child locked in the ir room and have her taken. The parents were negligent in their parental roles. IMHO they can't be negligent and misfortunate.

misfortunate was the loving mother who's daughter was got at while she cooked her supper.

That's misfortunate

Continuous reckless behavior can have devastating consequences.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

limnam wrote: »

misfortunate was the loving mother who's daughter was got at while she cooked her supper.

That's misfortunate

Continuous reckless behavior can have devastating consequences.

When you think about the mindset it's pretty sickening. We'll all go have a party every night of the week while our young children sleep on their own out of sight and we won't lock the apartments because it's inconvenient to us knocking back more wine.

Rock77

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

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It’s neither proof nor evidence.

Ask him what he calls all the things that point to CB being involved..

v638sg7k1a92bx

callmehal wrote: »

It's circumstantial evidence.

No it’s not. It’s just your opinion, conjecture and hearsay.

Either in isolation or taken together. None of that amounts to proof or evidence. Nothing.

limnam

callmehal wrote: »

When you think about the mindset it's pretty sickening. We'll all go have a party every night of the week while our young children sleep on their own out of sight and we won't lock the apartments because it's inconvenient to us knocking back more wine.

Utterly disgusting.

No wonder none of them could get a story straight.

Who wants to admit the above.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

No it’s not. It’s just your opinion, conjecture and hearsay.

Either in isolation or taken together. None of that amounts to proof or evidence. Nothing.

I'm afraid it's not my opinion, it's not conjecture nor hearsay. Have a read:


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

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

limnam wrote: »

Utterly disgusting.

No wonder none of them could get a story straight.

Who wants to admit the above.

That's right, the thing about it is, the lies told to try and cover all their neglect actually stifled the police investigation and hindered the opportunity to find Madeleine.

retro:electro

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

Seriously, it’s 13 years on and some posters are still astonished that Madeleine’s DNA was found in the apartment she was living in with her parents.
The conversation will never move on until the penny finally drops with that one.

Spanish Eyes

Regarding the fact that all couples including Madeleine's parents left their kids unattended night after night, true, but don't forget their apartments were not on the ground floor and therefore not as easily accessible as the Mc Cann's apartment to an opportunist abductor. And the rest of them had baby monitors too AFAIR, and one set had a granny with them who although she was at the table on the fateful night, we don't know if she was watching her grandchild/ren on other nights.

Also, the fact that the patio door was left unlocked on the premise that none of the children could open it from inside, surely an opportunist would check the doors, front door, locked, ok let me try the sliding door, Bingo.

limnam

callmehal wrote: »

That's right, the thing about it is, the lies told to try and cover all their neglect actually stifled the police investigation and hindered the opportunity to find Madeleine.

Totally.

Then you have all the bright lights blaming the Portuguese police.

What can they do when no ones stories match up.

Again, protecting themselves before the child.

Utterly disgusting bunch. The protection they get is as disgusting.

Rock77

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

No footprints on the bed

Jane didn’t notice an open window..

Evidence? Certainly not

v638sg7k1a92bx

callmehal wrote: »

I'm afraid it's not my opinion, it's not conjecture nor hearsay. Have a read:


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

Nothing in there is considered proof or evidence. It’s a list of 100 inconsequential random observations that amount to nothing.

limnam

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Nothing in there is considered proof or evidence. It’s a list of 100 inconsequential random observations that amount to nothing.

But a drunking slurr in a pub is hitting the jackpot.

lulz

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Nothing in there is considered proof or evidence. It’s a list of 100 inconsequential random observations that amount to nothing.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

SusieBlue

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

The ‘impartial’ and ‘neutral’ attitudes here are fooling absolutely no one. I’ve never seen such blatantly biased posts in my life, yet we’re expected to believe these opinions are coming from a neutral viewpoint.