Madeleine McCann

cnocbui · 17-11-2018 02:25AM

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

Deleted User wrote: »

On a scales of one to ten, how xenophobic would you think yourself? Based on your posting here it looks doubled digit.

Having lived in three different countries, I'd say not very. You need a sense of humour transplant rather urgently.

Boom_Bap · 17-11-2018 11:36AM

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

I see the dig at each other and not so subtly bombarding this thread again.
Knock it off or there will be thread bans issued again.

Deusexmachina · 17-11-2018 12:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

According to the McCanns and their friends, they were frequently checking on the kids. It's also a busy tourist resort. I can't imagine it would have been simple to just walk in unnoticed and pick up a sleeping child. Surely there would be a huge risk of been seen or caught inside the apartment?

Also, there is a good chance that a 3 year old child will cry and kick up a fuss if picked up by a stranger... She was crying the night before. That would potentially alert attention.

You wouldn't just leave a car outside. Again, it would easily be noticed if a car was just parked up outside for a few mins or lurking close by.

The window that was opened that only opens on the inside. Kate's DNA was found on it. No fingerprints, no footprints, no sign of a struggle anywhere in the apartment.

If she really was abducted, the abductor would have had to have walked in unnoticed at exactly the right time between checks, picked up the child without causing a disturbance to any of the children, escaped unnoticed with the child without leaving a footprint, fingerprint or DNA anywhere. Then disappeared without a trace.

I'm not saying that there is absolutely no chance that it happened... It just seems unlikely to me.

It is really the most straightforward explanation - the other explanations depend on a very complex and contrived set of circumstances - particularly the parents burying the body undetected.

To answer your points above:

There was a risk of being caught - but as everybody points out, the children were out of sight of the parents - their schedule was to check on the kids every3 0 minutes. Ample time for any abductor! (Think of the much bigger and stronger Deirdre Jacob snatched outside her home in broad daylight in seconds!)

There is a good chance a child will cry or scream - but not if you put your hand over her mouth - she was tiny remember.

There was an empty car park less than 100 yards away - this was suggested by the British investigators as the most likely place for the abductor to park . He/she would be very unlikely to walk through the town with a child in his/her arms. Car getaway makes most sense.

She was tiny - there would be no real struggle required and therefore no obvious evidence. What would you expect - the blanket was pulled back and that's the only sign that would be left in such circumstances (no blood, no furniture tossed aside, no footprints, no fingerprints.)

The patio door was open. That's where the intruder entered and left. Easily done.

Are you honestly telling me this is LESS LIKELY than the parents killing the child accidently through sedation or otherwise, burying the body completely unnoticed somewhere it has never been found despite all the searches, colluding with all their friends there to make up a story that they have all kept up all these years and never broke, have maintained this incredible facade, and have constantly asked for more investigation of the incident?

Deusexmachina · 17-11-2018 12:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

For some reason, Scotland Yard have always gone out of their way to emphasize that they are only investigating from an abduction or burglary gone wrong perspective. They are not even considering the McCanns.

They've never actually stated why it is that they won't consider it.

But they've spent millions and millions and all they really came up with is a few e fits of suspicious charity workers....

Time to call it a day.

Why are you so concerned about the cost? You're not paying it. Wouldn't it be great if an answer was found? What price on a little girl's life?

They are not considering the McCanns because its totally obvious from all the circumstances that they could not have done it.

Unless you think the police are in some major plot with the Government to cover up the crime because they don't want the Mc Canns to be caught?

Really??

limnam · 17-11-2018 01:57PM

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Fake as a Wooden leg

You were pretty solid until this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/

finger print

9A:2E:8D:DA:D1:7E:AF:F2:A8:DC:04:E6:0B:04:34:C9:75:42:74:74:9A:D1:9F:AC:68:47:98:77:D5:AA:1E:66

Finger print from the link provided to you

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4203859/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html

9A:2E:8D:DA:D1:7E:AF:F2:A8:DC:04:E6:0B:04:34:C9:75:42:74:74:9A:D1:9F:AC:68:47:98:77:D5:AA:1E:66

The second person on the "other" side to be caught telling blatant lies.

Do you want the McCanns to be innocent so much you'll try to convince that pages on a digitally certified URL from the telegraph is fake and has been there for 11 years?

Wow, yet something other than Madeleine been abducted is beyond your imagination ?

limnam · 17-11-2018 02:04PM

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Unless you think the police are in some major plot with the Government to cover up the crime because they don't want the Mc Canns to be caught?

Really??

people think the Portuguese police want to cover up and blame the McCanns to sell more ice cream to brits holidaying in Portugal ?

Really?

17-11-2018 02:14PM

The parents did it

cnocbui wrote: »

Having lived in three different countries, I'd say not very. You need a sense of humour transplant rather urgently.

I don't think the subject is appropriate for humour..........

Deusexmachina · 17-11-2018 02:48PM

limnam wrote: »

people think the Portuguese police want to cover up and blame the McCanns to sell more ice cream to brits holidaying in Portugal ?

Really?

Is that your best argument?

limnam · 17-11-2018 02:51PM

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Is that your best argument?

Why bother posting that?

Reply or don't reply, but what's the point of that question?

Deusexmachina · 17-11-2018 02:54PM

limnam wrote: »

Why bother posting that?

Reply or don't reply, but what's the point of that question?

Because your sarcastic and moxking post 'about selling ice cream to Brits' is juvenile.
The discussion deserves better.

limnam · 17-11-2018 02:55PM

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Because your sarcastic and moxking post 'about selling ice cream to Brits' is juvenile.
The discussion deserves better.

Regardless of the tone, the point stands.

Feel free to discuss it.

17-11-2018 02:58PM

Something Else

Deusexmachina wrote: »

It is really the most straightforward explanation - the other explanations depend on a very complex and contrived set of circumstances - particularly the parents burying the body undetected.

To answer your points above:

There was a risk of being caught - but as everybody points out, the children were out of sight of the parents - their schedule was to check on the kids every3 0 minutes. Ample time for any abductor! (Think of the much bigger and stronger Deirdre Jacob snatched outside her home in broad daylight in seconds!)

There is a good chance a child will cry or scream - but not if you put your hand over her mouth - she was tiny remember.

There was an empty car park less than 100 yards away - this was suggested by the British investigators as the most likely place for the abductor to park . He/she would be very unlikely to walk through the town with a child in his/her arms. Car getaway makes most sense.

She was tiny - there would be no real struggle required and therefore no obvious evidence. What would you expect - the blanket was pulled back and that's the only sign that would be left in such circumstances (no blood, no furniture tossed aside, no footprints, no fingerprints.)

The patio door was open. That's where the intruder entered and left. Easily done.

Are you honestly telling me this is LESS LIKELY than the parents killing the child accidently through sedation or otherwise, burying the body completely unnoticed somewhere it has never been found despite all the searches, colluding with all their friends there to make up a story that they have all kept up all these years and never broke, have maintained this incredible facade, and have constantly asked for more investigation of the incident?

Yeah that's what I lean towards. Although I don't think the friends were in on it.

An abduction scenario would be more complex than you think. It's unlikely that an abductor just parked up, was drawn to apartment 5a, noticed the patio door open, strolled in and jackpot, 3 helpless kids just lying there. Takes Madeline and strolls back to his their car.

What attracted the abductor to 5a?
How did he know he'd have easy access?
How did he know that there'd be kids there? (There was a child minding service across the street)
Did they know the parents were checking every 30 mins?

The McCanns were only there for a couple of days. It's doubtful that anyone would have been watching closely for long enough to establish their exact routines.

Also, the patio was open as in unlocked. Not swinging wide open.
How would an abductor know it was not locked?

Also, and I find it hard to even mention this because it's a bit sick but, if you were an abductor... Would you break into an apartment to abduct a girl? I'm sure there are much easier ways.

Abductions are usually more opportunistic like offering a lift or something attractive.

Charmeleon · 17-11-2018 02:58PM

Deusexmachina wrote: »

It is really the most straightforward explanation - the other explanations depend on a very complex and contrived set of circumstances - particularly the parents burying the body undetected.

To answer your points above:

There was a risk of being caught - but as everybody points out, the children were out of sight of the parents - their schedule was to check on the kids every3 0 minutes. Ample time for any abductor! (Think of the much bigger and stronger Deirdre Jacob snatched outside her home in broad daylight in seconds!)

There is a good chance a child will cry or scream - but not if you put your hand over her mouth - she was tiny remember.

There was an empty car park less than 100 yards away - this was suggested by the British investigators as the most likely place for the abductor to park . He/she would be very unlikely to walk through the town with a child in his/her arms. Car getaway makes most sense.

She was tiny - there would be no real struggle required and therefore no obvious evidence. What would you expect - the blanket was pulled back and that's the only sign that would be left in such circumstances (no blood, no furniture tossed aside, no footprints, no fingerprints.)

The patio door was open. That's where the intruder entered and left. Easily done.

Are you honestly telling me this is LESS LIKELY than the parents killing the child accidently through sedation or otherwise, burying the body completely unnoticed somewhere it has never been found despite all the searches, colluding with all their friends there to make up a story that they have all kept up all these years and never broke, have maintained this incredible facade, and have constantly asked for more investigation of the incident?

Jane Tanner claims she saw a child being taken away while Gerry was talking to Jez outside the apartment. The McCanns have always maintained this was the abductor and no one has come forward to say it was them she saw. Scotland Yard bizarrely claim it was a man who was walking in the opposite direction towards the apartment.

Jane saw this person within minutes of Gerry leaving the apartment after he saw Madeleine in bed and while he was standing close to the gate that leads to the apartment back door that was unlocked. The only way in.

5 minutes to sneak past Gerry and Jez standing at the gate, open the back doors without either of them noticing, go straight to the kids bedroom, open the window and the noisy shutters and then leave by the front door.

Must have been Derren Brown.

Deusexmachina · 17-11-2018 03:58PM

Charmeleon wrote: »

Jane Tanner claims she saw a child being taken away while Gerry was talking to Jez outside the apartment. The McCanns have always maintained this was the abductor and no one has come forward to say it was them she saw. Scotland Yard bizarrely claim it was a man who was walking in the opposite direction towards the apartment.

Jane saw this person within minutes of Gerry leaving the apartment after he saw Madeleine in bed and while he was standing close to the gate that leads to the apartment back door that was unlocked. The only way in.

5 minutes to sneak past Gerry and Jez standing at the gate, open the back doors without either of them noticing, go straight to the kids bedroom, open the window and the noisy shutters and then leave by the front door.

Must have been Derren Brown.

Or else Tanners sighting was not the abductors. Obvious really.

Deusexmachina · 17-11-2018 04:00PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah that's what I lean towards. Although I don't think the friends were in on it.

An abduction scenario would be more complex than you think. It's unlikely that an abductor just parked up, was drawn to apartment 5a, noticed the patio door open, strolled in and jackpot, 3 helpless kids just lying there. Takes Madeline and strolls back to his their car.

What attracted the abductor to 5a?
How did he know he'd have easy access?
How did he know that there'd be kids there? (There was a child minding service across the street)
Did they know the parents were checking every 30 mins?

The McCanns were only there for a couple of days. It's doubtful that anyone would have been watching closely for long enough to establish their exact routines.

Also, the patio was open as in unlocked. Not swinging wide open.
How would an abductor know it was not locked?

Also, and I find it hard to even mention this because it's a bit sick but, if you were an abductor... Would you break into an apartment to abduct a girl? I'm sure there are much easier ways.

Abductions are usually more opportunistic like offering a lift or something attractive.

Usually but not always. Larry Murphy planned his. You can't generalise.

iamwhoiam · 17-11-2018 04:16PM

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

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah that's what I lean towards. Although I don't think the friends were in on it.

An abduction scenario would be more complex than you think. It's unlikely that an abductor just parked up, was drawn to apartment 5a, noticed the patio door open, strolled in and jackpot, 3 helpless kids just lying there. Takes Madeline and strolls back to his their car.

What attracted the abductor to 5a?
How did he know he'd have easy access?
How did he know that there'd be kids there? (There was a child minding service across the street)
Did they know the parents were checking every 30 mins?

The McCanns were only there for a couple of days. It's doubtful that anyone would have been watching closely for long enough to establish their exact routines.

Also, the patio was open as in unlocked. Not swinging wide open.
How would an abductor know it was not locked?

Also, and I find it hard to even mention this because it's a bit sick but, if you were an abductor... Would you break into an apartment to abduct a girl? I'm sure there are much easier ways.

Abductions are usually more opportunistic like offering a lift or something attractive.

It could have been an inside job . The pattern was established as the Mc Cann and co group booked the Tapas table in advance for the next 3-4 nights . The booking page was open for all to see and a member of staff could have passed on the info . It could have been inadvertently passed on by gossiping at a family gathering or night out .
My opinion ( opinion only ) is it could well have been an inside job and a key passed on for the front door . Car parked outside the door and in and out in seconds
The children were left unattended and in a vulnerable position and it is not impossible to think an inside job could have occurred .
.

MonkieSocks · 17-11-2018 06:46PM

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

limnam wrote: »

You were pretty solid until this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
finger print
9A:2E:8D:DA:D1:7E:AF:F2:A8:DC:04:E6:0B:04:34:C9:75:42:74:74:9A:D1:9F:AC:68:47:98:77:D5:AA:1E:66
Finger print from the link provided to you
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatfeedback/4203859/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html
9A:2E:8D:DA:D1:7E:AF:F2:A8:DC:04:E6:0B:04:34:C9:75:42:74:74:9A:D1:9F:AC:68:47:98:77:D5:AA:1E:66

Wow, yet something other than Madeleine been abducted is beyond your imagination ?

I know all of the above.

There is a very easy explanation for the time on the Telegraph Page.

Most breaking news from the telegraph stories had 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

Here's a sample.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550574/Motorists-prepare-for-Bank-Holiday-jams.html

I have always had an open mind on the investigation.

My very first post about them on borard was "They Done It"

Then I read the Offical files and changed my mind.

Knock yourselves out

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/archive/2007-5-4.html

limnam · 17-11-2018 06:56PM

MonkieSocks wrote: »

I know all of the above.

There is a very easy explanation for the time on the Telegraph Page.

Most breaking news from the telegraph stories had 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

Here's a sample.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550574/Motorists-prepare-for-Bank-Holiday-jams.html

I have always had an open mind on the investigation.

My very first post about them on borard was "They Done It"

Then I read the Offical files and changed my mind.

Knock yourselves out

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/archive/2007-5-4.html

None of that explains you claiming the site/page is fake.

MonkieSocks · 17-11-2018 07:01PM

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

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Or else Tanners sighting was not the abductors. Obvious really.

Correct.

He was correctly identified as Dr Julian Toteman carry his child.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/

MonkieSocks · 17-11-2018 07:09PM

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

limnam wrote: »

None of that explains you claiming the site/page is fake.

That's called having fun :P
I knew it wasn't fake

______________________________________________

The main point raised was that people were saying news was out 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

First reports were coming to news agencies at 7.48am ST 04 May 2007

limnam · 17-11-2018 07:11PM

MonkieSocks wrote: »

That's called having fun :P
I knew it wasn't fake

Great thread to choose for amusement.

gozunda · 17-11-2018 07:11PM

Something Else

limnam wrote: »

None of that explains you claiming the site/page is fake.

Poster is evidently making it up as they go along and can't admit when they've got it completly arseways ...

MonkieSocks wrote:

Fake link/ Web Page https://www.telegraph....ted-in-Portugal.html
Please link an offical link from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/

MonkieSocks wrote:

It's a page set up to look like the paper, Telegraph wasn't hacked

MonkieSocks wrote:

It's still fake
Checked by Link Checker and Validator.
Fake as a Wooden leg

gozunda · 17-11-2018 07:14PM

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

That's called having fun :PI knew it wasn't fake l
The main point raised was that people were saying news was out 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007First reports were coming to news agencies at 7.48am ST 04 May 2007

Is that not trolling? Either way you are wrong again.

limnam · 17-11-2018 07:16PM

gozunda wrote: »

Poster is evidently making it up as they go along and can't admit when they've got it completly arseways ...

Don't know why they do it.

They just become someone who's posts can no longer be trusted.

Again, I don't understand if it's so obvious they're innocent why even on this thread people are willing to tell lies to try and prove a point.

We had people claim Kate had answered questions in a police interview she wasn't even asked.

Claims about false websites.

Really is odd.

MonkieSocks · 17-11-2018 07:23PM

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

gozunda wrote: »

Either way you are wrong again.

How is this wrong?

There is a very easy explanation for the time on the Telegraph Page.

Most breaking news from the telegraph stories had 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

Here's a sample

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...iday-jams.html

I have always had an open mind on the investigation.

My very first post about them on boards was "They Done It"

Then I read the Official files and changed my mind.

MonkieSocks · 17-11-2018 07:34PM

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

limnam wrote: »

Great thread to choose for amusement.

Weren't you banned from this thread before .

gozunda · 17-11-2018 07:34PM

Something Else

limnam wrote: »

Don't know why they do it.

They just become someone who's posts can no longer be trusted.

Again, I don't understand if it's so obvious they're innocent why even on this thread people are willing to tell lies to try and prove a point.

We had people claim Kate had answered questions in a police interview she wasn't even asked.
Claims about false websites.
Really is odd.

Best ignore the trolls imo. They will scream blue murder and demand Proof at every opportunity - deny the truth and then insist they are still right. And not an apology in sight.
:rolleyes:

Posters like that can only have so many chances tbh

limnam · 17-11-2018 07:36PM

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Weren't you banned from this thread before .

I don't see why that's relevant?

nim1bdeh38l2cw · 17-11-2018 07:40PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

All we know is Madeleine is gone since May 3rd 2017

Where was she for the 10 years before that?

iamwhoiam · 17-11-2018 07:54PM

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

Legend Low Drivel wrote: »

Where was she for the 10 years before that?

A typo ! Sorry

Madeleine McCann

Comments