Madeleine McCann

Spanish Eyes

I enjoy following the chit chat here, and contribute now and then, often get a rollicking from the usual suspects who cannot nor will not have an open mind! But whatever.

I think we can say what we wish, as long as we are not personally abusive to another poster. So let's all just post away and see where it goes.

The entire group were negligent drunks afais. Stick the kids in the creche all day, leave them alone at night while they got hammered. Well maybe selfish idiots is another word I would use. But there we are. The truth is that they didn't care about their precious children one bit. Left that to others, or left them on their own, and see what happened as a result? The child is gone.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

I hate to embarrass you like this but it has to be done so we can move on.

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Very well put. The probability is very low. It would make total sense for an abduction to have taken place. All of CB’s movements, reports of conversations he has with friends and the Re- registering his Jag point to his involvement but no forensics were found to implicate him either (so far) maybe the investigation is only raw in this guy atm. Nobody is innocent until someone is proven guilty. It would be the greatest crime by two people with previously no convictions to get away with killing their daughter. Very low possibility but there is a probability too, time lines are sketchy as they all left their phones in their apartments on the evening and Madeline was last seen at 5:30pm. So the timeline is much longer then everyone thinks. We’ll wait and see.

callmehal wrote: »

The parents were most likely trying to cover up their neglect, of course, all this managed to do is hinder the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance and made them suspects.

They need to find more on the peado. It's hard to see if a definite sighting of him at the scene or near it will be found now. Obviously, if they can find who was on the phone to them but who knows, that might have been an unrelated call.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Except they covered up nothing. From day dot, they’ve gotten dogs abuse from the press and the public for leaving the kids alone.
They never hid that, they never denied it, and they didn’t cover it up.
Nobody cares if they did or didn’t check on the kids, or how often the checks happened, because most people are rightly of the opinion that they should never have left them in the first place, regardless of checks.

So they didn’t cover up anything and they didn’t get away with anything. So they really had no motive in that regard because none of the ‘neglect’ was covered up at all.

callmehal wrote: »

Well in fairness, you hardly think they were going to get praised for leaving their kids alone while they drank away every night?

They did try to cover it up. The checks were likely to be far less than stated by the group. Especially with the fact that Madeleine was reported to be crying for a long time previously. It's really sad when you think about it.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Where did I imply I believe they should be praised?

No one cares about the checks because the checks don’t let them off the hook for anything, the point remains the same - they never should have left them alone, even if they were checking on them.
They have received dogs abuse for this stupid choice and everyone has been fully aware since the early days of 2007 of what they did, they never hid it.

So they covered up nothing and got away with nothing. Their choice to leave the children has been discussed, criticised and condemned ad nauseam, so they must have done a pretty piss poor job of their ‘cover up’ if that’s the case.

callmehal wrote: »

Yes, they did a piss poor job of their cover up. Even hindering the search for Madeleine. Leaving their kids on their own was bad enough but they compounded it! It's sickening really.

Of course, the checks are important by the way. Timelines in all this is very important. To try to cover their own backs with their lies hurt the investigation.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Nah sorry, you have no evidence there that supports your theory that they covered anything up. It just isn’t washing. Unless you can support your claims with evidence you really shouldn’t make them.

callmehal wrote: »

Eh? You're claiming the tapas crew were telling the truth on the timelines. You got any proof of that?

SusieBlue wrote: »

Quote where I mentioned the tapas group or the timeline, or take back that comment.

You said that the McCanns were trying to cover up their neglect, you have provided no proof whatsoever to back this up apart from your own opinion.

callmehal wrote: »

That's what I was discussing. Sorry if you couldn't keep up.

You have provided no proof to say that they were telling the truth about the timelines.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I mentioned nothing about timelines, so that’s a complete red herring to deflect from the actual conversation on your part.
We were discussing the McCanns covering up their neglect, of which you’ve provided no evidence to support.
That’s ok if you don’t have any, let’s just move on now.

callmehal wrote: »

I was discussing the McCanns and co covering up for their neglect. You couldn't provide any proof to back up your claim that they were telling the truth.
You can run away from it if you want, I don't care.

SusieBlue wrote: »

You are the one who made the original assertion, which you were unable to back up with supportive evidence. As the person who made the original claim, the onus was on you to provide the proof and you didn’t.
You are the one running away and trying to deflect it on me just because you have nada to offer up besides your opinion :pac:

callmehal wrote: »

If you haven't followed the case closely enough to know about the checking timeline issues then I'm not here to educate you on that. You shouldn't be making claims you can't back up if you haven't followed the case. I've provided enough links for people with getting little thanks for it. More appreciation needed.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why are you bringing up the timeline, you’re moving the goal posts? We weren’t discussing timelines, at no time did I question the timeline or anything to do with the tapas group?
We were discussing the McCanns doing a cover up to hide their neglect.
It seems you cannot back up your assertion that they were trying to cover up their neglect with any conclusive evidence and now you are throwing out red herrings to deflect. It’s so transparent.

Again, I apologise for embarrassing you but you weren't able to follow the conversation.

SusieBlue

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

callmehal wrote: »

I hate to embarrass you like this but it has to be done so we can move on.

And again, the only person talking about the timeline there was you. I was talking about the lack of evidence of covering up the neglect, which as of yet you still haven’t provided any evidence to support.
You’re like a dog with a bone, you can’t let anyone else have the last word but you’re extremely wrong here.
It’s ok.
I’m happy to move on now that we’ve cleared it up.

retro:electro

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Susie, Dark and Electro. In a couple of sentences can you explain why you defend the McCanns when they were obviously negligent parents? What motivates you?

I’ve never defended their behaviour that night. Can you point to where I have?

I was shocked, aghast, disgusted and couldn’t believe they could ever do such a thing... 13 years ago when this case first came into the public interest. Now, yes I still can’t wrap my head around such a remarkably irresponsible decision but who does it serve to constantly twist the knife and point this out? Me? No.. The McCanns? No.. Twisted internet trolls who just want to berate them over and over... yes. I’m not going to hold onto that much hate and continually fire it in the direction of two people who have paid the ultimate price for their recklessness. I’m not going to participate in the repeated shaming of them like it’s an Olympic sport but by not doing so does not mean i defend their decision.

It’s not something I’ll ever understand, however it’s done and none of us can undo it. Do you think they’re not reminded of their loss every second of the day? I’ve zero interest in adding to their pain and guilt. Do people think if they can get everyone to say how negligent they were enough times that Madeleine will magically reappear? She won’t. It only serves to further twist the knife into two grieving parents who have to live with their reckless decision for the rest of their lives.

These days I tend to save my disgust for the opportunist dickhead who helped himself to something that was never ever his to take, doors open or not, parents there or not.

SusieBlue

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Susie, Dark and Electro. In a couple of sentences can you explain why you defend the McCanns when they were obviously negligent parents? What motivates you?

Because I don’t think the fact that they left their children alone proves that they murdered their child.

It’s possible to think they were wrong for leaving the children and that they aren’t murderers at the same time.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

And again, the only person talking about the timeline there was you. I was talking about the lack of evidence of covering up the neglect, which as of yet you still haven’t provided any evidence to support.
You’re like a dog with a bone, you can’t let anyone else have the last word but you’re extremely wrong here.
It’s ok.
I’m happy to move on now that we’ve cleared it up.

Maybe have a read again. You can see that Banana Republic was discussing the timelines, I responded to that and then you discussed the checks in your reply to me and then I responded accordingly.

Yes, we can move along now. Again, I hope I didn't embarrass you too badly but at least it's brought an end to the confusion.

Spanish Eyes

retro:electro wrote: »

I’ve never defended their behaviour that night. Can you point to where I have?

I was shocked, aghast, disgusted and couldn’t believe they could ever do such a thing... 13 years ago when this case first came into the public interest. Now, yes I still can’t wrap my head around such a remarkably irresponsible decision but who does it serve to constantly twist the knife and point this out? Me? No.. The McCanns? No.. Twisted internet trolls who just want to berate them over and over... yes. I’m not going to hold onto that much hate and continually fire it in the direction of two people who have paid the ultimate price for their recklessness. I’m not going to participate in the repeated shaming of them like it’s an Olympic sport but by not doing so does not mean i defend their decision.

It’s not something I’ll ever understand, however it’s done and none of us can undo it. Do you think they’re not reminded of their loss every second of the day? I’ve zero interest in adding to their pain and guilt. Do people think if they can get everyone to say how negligent they were enough times that Madeleine will magically reappear? She won’t. It only serves to further twist the knife into two grieving parents who have to live with their reckless decision for the rest of their lives.

These days I tend to save my disgust for the opportunist dickhead who helped himself to something that was never ever his to take, doors open or not, parents there or not.

No proof of that is there, but a strong possibility just the same.

SusieBlue

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

callmehal wrote: »

Maybe have a read again. You can see that Banana Republic was discussing the timelines, I responded to that and then you discussed the checks in your reply to me and then I responded accordingly.

Yes, we can move along now. Again, I hope I didn't embarrass you too badly but at least it's brought an end to the confusion.

Nah you’re a massive hypocrite, constantly badgering people for their alleged lack of supportive evidence when you can’t provide any yourself for your own claims.
It’s there for everyone to see. Maybe remember this the next time before you start hounding someone for posting how they perceive the case.

OwlsZat

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

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because I don’t think the fact that they left their children alone proves that they murdered their child.

It’s possible to think they were wrong for leaving the children and that they aren’t murderers at the same time.

Murder is a very strong word. I'd avoid using it as the parents didnt murder her you can be pretty certain of that.

You point out they left their children alone but they were also in an unlocked room. So alone and precariously vulnerable.

Alone in an unlocked room someone could have taken her. Sedated and alone she could have critically injured herself. The alone and unlocked is a requirement of whatever you think caused her death. At the very best the McCanns were partly responsible for her death.

I've heard people saying they were differnt times yet I've not heard anyone saying we used to do that or our friends family parents used to so that.... To me the idea of having tapas and wine while your children are alone in an unlocked room is totally alien. Maybe you can explain a scenario where this didnt contribute to her death.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

Nah you’re a massive hypocrite, constantly badgering people for their alleged lack of supportive evidence when you can’t provide any yourself for your own claims.
It’s there for everyone to see. Maybe remember this the next time before you start hounding someone for posting how they perceive the case.

You misunderstood the conversation and got things wrong. These things happen. Chin up.

Just to get things back on track. When they say the peado re-registered his vehicle, do they have any clue as to where that was done. That could be key.

dark crystal

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

You are quoting Gerry McCann worst parent of the year from his own statements as if it's evidence. Get a grip on reality.

Oh, it's you again. Does anybody on this thread look at the posts I'm quoting before jumping down my throat with nonsense attacks.

I'm not quoting Banana Republic's whole post again (it's there if you can be bothered to go back and read), She asked if there were any independent witnesses to back up Gerry's statement that he was playing tennis from 6pm to 7pm. I simply posted that there were, in fact, three independent witnesses who were playing tennis with him at the time. If you wish to call them liars as well, be my guest, but stop with the 'get a grip on reality' rubbish. It's not warranted here.

You'd do well to watch the new Netflix show Usual suspects. I'd love to hear your thoughts on episode 2 and the lead suspect. He goes to great lengths to explain how the murder can't be him has he has a perfect alibi. Like Gerry the statement's demonstrate his intelligence but no more.

You don't need a perfect alibi if you're innocent. No idea how some other case involving some random guy has any bearing on this one, or how it's in any way relevant, but you'd do well to stick to the facts in this case instead of referring people onto some other random case on Netflix.

SusieBlue

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

callmehal wrote: »

You misunderstood the conversation and got things wrong. These things happen. Chin up.

Just to get things back on track. When they say the peado re-registered his vehicle, do they have any clue as to where that was done. That could be key.

You just can’t help yourself with the patronising passive aggression, I’m sure you think you’re getting a rise out of everyone but you’re not.
I personally find it amusing.
Everyone can see quite clearly what you’re doing, and that you aren’t posting with the honest intentions of wanting to debate, all you do is go on about how ‘neutral’ you are when you are undoubtedly the least impartial person on this whole thread.
Pontificating about how people need to be more open minded while voting the opposite in the thread poll, you couldn’t make it up.
At least everyone can see it for what it is though.
But I agree, let’s move on now that we’ve cleared all that up.

SusieBlue

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Murder is a very strong word. I'd avoid using it as the parents didnt murder her you can be pretty certain of that.

You point out they left their children alone but they were also in an unlocked room. So alone and precariously vulnerable.

Alone in an unlocked room someone could have taken her. Sedated and alone she could have critically injured herself. The alone and unlocked is a requirement of whatever you think caused her death. At the very best the McCanns were partly responsible for her death.

I've heard people saying they were differnt times yet I've not heard anyone saying we used to do that or our friends family parents used to so that.... To me the idea of having tapas and wine while your children are alone in an unlocked room is totally alien. Maybe you can explain a scenario where this didnt contribute to her death.

I’m not getting into whataboutery with you, I’ve made my position clear. I don’t have to justify myself any further, particularly when I know you have no interest in listening to anything I have to say.

Leaving the children alone and unsupervised while they went out for tapas and wine was wrong, but I don’t believe that makes them murderers or killers.
I take no pleasure in berating and criticising them when they are already paying the ultimate price for what they did.
The only person responsible for Madeleine disappearing is the person who took her, and so far there is nothing to prove that was her parents.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

You just can’t help yourself with the patronising passive aggression, I’m sure you think you’re getting a rise out of everyone but you’re not.
I personally find it amusing.
Everyone can see quite clearly what you’re doing, and that you aren’t posting with the honest intentions of wanting to debate, all you do is go on about how ‘neutral’ you are when you are undoubtedly the least impartial person on this whole thread.
Pontificating about how people need to be more open minded while voting the opposite in the thread poll, you couldn’t make it up.
At least everyone can see it for what it is though.
But I agree, let’s move on now that we’ve cleared all that up.

Calm down. No need for posts like that. What thread poll? Ohhhh! Just had a look. Oops, clicked the wrong button. I made a mistake, I hold my hands up and admit it. I meant to select another option. See, it's not so difficult to admit when you make mistakes. No one will think less of you.

Now, back to the case. Was the peado still in the area, where was he when he re-registered the car?

dark crystal

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

callmehal wrote: »

Now, back to the case. Was the peado still in the area, where was he when he re-registered the car?

Don't you have access to Google?

cnocbui

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

dark crystal wrote: »

Don't you have access to Google?

You are probably being too kind in your estimate of both resourcefulness and skill set.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

dark crystal wrote: »

Don't you have access to Google?

I know, I know. It's not a discussion about the McCanns so you don't want it brought up here. But are you a mod on this forum?

dark crystal

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

callmehal wrote: »

I know, I know. It's not a discussion about the McCanns so you don't want it brought up here. But are you a mod on this forum?

No. Are you? As far as I can see, you're the only one complaining about the direction in which the discussion unfolds.

Here: https://www.google.com/

You're welcome

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

dark crystal wrote: »

No. Are you? As far as I can see, you're the only one complaining about the direction in which the discussion unfolds.

Here: https://www.google.com/

You're welcome

I believe only a mod can ban discussion on topics on this forum. Thanks for the link but I think I'll discuss it here. Wow, did you see that, you got thanked for providing a link. All I got was abuse for providing helpful links. :pac:

Now, I wonder how far the peado travelled the next day. I don't believe re-registering was possible to do online at the time.

OwlsZat

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

dark crystal wrote: »

Oh, it's you again. Does anybody on this thread look at the posts I'm quoting before jumping down my throat with nonsense attacks.

Sorry to tell you nobody really reads your posts. Full of personal insults garbled text and zero content. In all the spam you've written you haven't provided a single interesting thought.

Banana Republic.

dark crystal wrote: »

He was playing tennis with the Tennis coach, Dan, Dr. julian Totman and a man called Curtis. All independent witnesses and not part of his group of friends.

From his statement: https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm



So, David Payne, having returned from a beach trip with his family and other members of the group - but not the McCanns - met Gerry at the tennis court at 6.30pm and then went to talk to Kate at her apartment. He then returns to the tennis court just before 7pm and plays tennis himself whilst Gerry goes back to the apartment.

Sorry, but I cannot find Kate's statement in which she says how long David Payne was at the apartment and whether there was a discrepency, however, Payne was at the tennis court, in the vision of independent witnesses, at 6.30pm and again just before 7pm.



The Smith sighting cannot be Gerry, as many independent witnesses put him at the Ocean Club resort at 10pm, the same time as that sighting.

I'm a bit unclear about your last suggestion..are you saying that it's possible that Gerry contacted CB, a paedophile living in a country they'd never visited before, to hand his child over to the day before (May 2nd)?

Apologies if that's not what you're saying, but if so, that goes way beyond playing devil's advocate and there's no proof whatsoever of any connection between the two.

Okay so that confirms the timing which would make out far far harder to move a child between the designated times given. The Gerry sighting was after 10 and that was when she was reported missing so that timeline can fit and Smyth sighting had relevance when he seen Gerry boarding the plane home from Portugal holding “Sean” .

Yes playing devils advocate isn’t playing a softly softly scenario. It’s a far fetched and seemingly ludicrous scenario but it’s the only way The parents could be involved in the disappearance if the timelines were in fact that tight.

dark crystal

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Sorry to tell you nobody really reads your posts. Full of personal insults garbled text and zero content. In all the spam you've written you haven't provided a single interesting thought.

Stop quoting me then! You keep doing it, even though you never read them...

Anything interesting to add to the discussion yourself besides personal insults aimed at a poster you have no interest in? :pac:

Banana Republic.

callmehal wrote: »

I believe only a mod can ban discussion on topics on this forum. Thanks for the link but I think I'll discuss it here. Wow, did you see that, you got thanked for providing a link. All I got was abuse for providing helpful links. :pac:

Now, I wonder how far the peado travelled the next day. I don't believe re-registering was possible to do online at the time.

That would be very interesting, surely there’s documentation and cctv of him at the place to re-register the car. This can place him and help track his possible movements between his phone call, abduction and re-registering the car.

Also talking about cars The hired Mc Cann car done 11,000 miles in the 4 months the rented the car. Police investigated this mileage as a matter of interest. Reports of the boot being left open day and night for many days is something I remember also not sure it meant much though. A neighbour who was a lawyer reported It and that the car was transporting trash bags but police thought this could of been moving a dead body. (Their word’s not mine).

Both men said there was an unusual odour in the boot, both related to the Mc Canns, one of the ppl removed the carpet and washed it the smell was so bad. Alexander Cameron at the time married to Gerrys sister & Micheal Wright married to Kate’s cousin both had access to the car while in Portugal.

retro:electro

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Sorry to tell you nobody really reads your posts. Full of personal insults garbled text and zero content. In all the spam you've written you haven't provided a single interesting thought.

How do you know nobody reads them? I read them, as do many others judging by the thanks DC gets. She is an extremely well informed poster. Why are you being so personal towards her? What a bizarre post.

dark crystal

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

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Okay so that confirms the timing which would make out far far harder to move a child between the designated times given. The Gerry sighting was after 10 and that was when she was reported missing so that timeline can fit and Smyth sighting had relevance when he seen Gerry boarding the plane home from Portugal holding “Sean” .

Sorry, you've lost me. What Gerry sighting was after 10?

Yes playing devils advocate isn’t playing a softly softly scenario. It’s a far fetched and seemingly ludicrous scenario but it’s the only way The parents could be involved in the disappearance if the timelines were in fact that tight.

If there were any connection between CB and the McCanns, the police would have a log of it. They have a log of the phone call he made to the mystery Portuguese mobile, so there's no reason why they wouldn't have a log of other calls.

Also, again not sure if exactly correct, but I think I read that the McCanns mobile phones were not used for a large portion of that day, not until after the alarm had been raised. I'll see if I can find it...

dark crystal

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

retro:electro wrote: »

How do you know nobody reads them? I read them, as do many others judging by the thanks DC gets. She is an extremely well informed poster. Why are you being so personal towards her? What a bizarre post.

Thanks RE, water off a duck's back with that one, trust me

Spanish Eyes

Thread might be closed soon. By the real moderators!

It is manic in here now. I said, he said, she said, they all said, the paedo done it, the parents did it, no they didn't, don't attack me, look it up on google.

Honestly, it is great craic altogether, apart from the fact that the little child is missing for 13 years possibly forever.

retro:electro

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

dark crystal wrote: »

Thanks RE, water off a duck's back with that one, trust me

Nobody reads your posts okay McCann evangelist? I will obsessively quote your posts day in day out but I’m not reading them mmmkay?

Banana Republic.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thread might be closed soon. By the real moderators!

It is manic in here now. I said, he said, she said, they all said, the paedo done it, the parents did it, no they didn't, don't attack me, look it up on google.

Honestly, it is great craic altogether, apart from the fact that the little child is missing for 13 years possibly forever.

Everyone should Listen to the podcast and then come back to discuss it. Fascinating if ppl are actually really interested in knowing the investigation facts.

Banana Republic.

Powerful stuff here, Amaral said they would use a German Peado who is currently in jail in Germany for an unrelated matter and will be used to close the case and wrap things up. He found nothing to link him to the abduction. Also that Operation Grange had been working on another German Peado to close the case but he died a few years ago and they are looking to use someone to end this case without actually solving it.