Madeleine McCann

gozunda · 31-03-2019 03:53PM

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

I asked you for a link to the allegation you made regarding Jane Tanner - Robert Murat.
Harangued* indeed
You didn't provide it, so I will not be responding to you any more.

(Eh your edit above subsequently mixing up my two different comments in what you quoted and then including a bit* from this comment shows you have 'responded' btw...)

And yet you still can't provide a reliable link for the bizarre commentary on the Gaspar statement as being from the PJ files? Really.

Considering that in my first post, I detailed in the interest of balance you may wish to add Jane Tanners multiple accounts and many many inconsistencies regarding the description of the individual she alleges she saw that night carrying a child.

But you haven't done that either...

And now I am harangued for not replying to something which is in the public record as some subsequent whataboutry? Lol.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 31-03-2019 07:02PM

Tomw86 wrote: »

And yet after 12 years they still have how much evidence that this definitely happened?

Yeah, didn't think so...............

And yet after being told 12 times absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

On the balance of probability, abduction most likely and definitely more likely than the other theories put forward so if you are so certain it was not an abduction then you have to be even more certain that the parents were not involved in the disappearance, murder or accidental death as there is not a scintilla of credible evidence to support theses theories and please don't start with he pseudo dog and DNA evidence, I've shot those down numerous times on this thread that I can't be bothered to explain it again.

Likewise with the Martin Smith eyewitness evidence that everyone here hangs their hat on. Anyone with experience in police investigations will tell you that eye witness evidence is highly unreliable and needs to be carried out in a controlled environment . Smith was predisposed to Gerry McCann's face which had been all over the media meaning if Martin Smith had identified Gerry McCann in a police line up, the evidence may not have been admissible because he was predisposed to McCann from the TB and newspapers. We just had a similar situation in Ireland with the Regency hotel murder over the identification of the alleged conspirator who was on trial because the control environment of identify the alleged was contaminated by the Gardai simply because two Gadai were in the same room when they alleged was identified. This is considered one of the reasons, amongst others, why the DPP dropped the case. So if you take the Martin Smith sighting and multiply by ten, that's how unreliable his eyewitness efit is.

But faced with all this, you still to choose to put the blinkers on when faced with those facts and roll out the line "no evidence of abduction.
Unless they person took a s**t in the corner of the room,what evidence would you expect to find, the amount of time spent in the apartment was probable seconds.

chicorytip · 31-03-2019 07:25PM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

But faced with all this, you still to choose to put the blinkers on when faced with those facts and roll out the line "no evidence of abduction. Unless they person took a s**t in the corner of the room,what evidence would you expect to find, the amount of time spent in the apartment was probable seconds.

What is your opinion on how an abduction was successfully accomplished in that case? Do you think the original theory - based on Kate McCanns description of the scene she discovered - that abductor and child left through the bedroom window is plausible?

v638sg7k1a92bx · 31-03-2019 08:09PM

chicorytip wrote: »

What is your opinion on how an abduction was successfully accomplished in that case? Do you think the original theory - based on Kate McCanns description of the scene she discovered - that abductor and child left through the bedroom window is plausible?

They walked in picked up the child and and left door they came. Maybe they considered going out the window opened it, closed it, whatever. I expect that the person involved was in the room for a matter of seconds. But posters who are clinging onto the "he said this", "she said that", "the tapas 7 said this". It is perfectly acceptable for the recall of the sequence of events not to be consistent, you are dealing with an extremely emotionally charged situation with multiple people charging around looking for a missing child. You cannot take every single word that they uttered literally in this type of situation. The parents are running around in a mad panic going through every possible situation of what may have happened to their child, it is not unreasonable for them to consider the option that someone may have exited the window based on their thought process at that point in time.

gozunda · 31-03-2019 08:51PM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

And yet after being told 12 times absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

With respect that truism works for all the possible scenarios and not just the one you like.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

On the balance of probability, abduction most likely and definitely more likely than the other theories put forward so if you are so certain it was not an abduction then you have to be even more certain that the parents were not involved in the disappearance, murder or accidental death as there is not a scintilla of credible evidence to support theses theories and please don't start with he pseudo dog and DNA evidence, I've shot those down numerous times on this thread that I can't be bothered to explain it again.

Well you see all that's just your opinion. Stating it doesn't make it true however - one way or the other.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Likewise with the Martin Smith eyewitness evidence that everyone here hangs their hat on. Anyone with experience in police investigations will tell you that eye witness evidence is highly unreliable and needs to be carried out in a controlled environment .

Are you saying you have 'experience' in police investigations?? And where are you taking this from? You do know that the Smith's police interviews were undertaken by the Police in a controlled environment - yeah? And the same police have stated they believed the witnesses involved to be reliable etc

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Smith was predisposed to Gerry McCann's face which had been all over the media meaning if Martin Smith had identified Gerry McCann in a police line up, the evidence may not have been admissible because he was predisposed to McCann from the TB and newspapers. We just had a similar situation in Ireland with the Regency hotel murder over the identification of the alleged conspirator who was on trial because the control environment of identify the alleged was contaminated by the Gardai simply because two Gadai were in the same room when they alleged was identified. This is considered one of the reasons, amongst others, why the DPP dropped the case. So if you take the Martin Smith sighting and multiply by ten, that's how unreliable his eyewitness efit is.

And that particular detail can be leveled at most anyone who is identified by an witness. Significant issues however come to the front when witnesses are not 'independant' as in the case of Jane Tanner.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

But faced with all this, you still to choose to put the blinkers on when faced with those facts and roll out the line "no evidence of abduction.
Unless they person took a s**t in the corner of the room,what evidence would you expect to find, the amount of time spent in the apartment was probable seconds.

It remains the evidence for all the scenarios is at best circumstantial. Possible evidence which would be likley left behind or observed in the case of an abduction has already been detailed "many times". Just because some have ignored it - does not mean that the absence of such evidence therefore proves abduction!. That indeed is a crazy theory imo.

Imo 'anyone with experience in police investigations' keeps an open mind especially where there is no absolute evidence and what is believed to have happend is largely based on opinion and speculation

OwlsZat · 31-03-2019 10:13PM

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

gozunda wrote: »

Are you saying you have 'experience' in police investigations?? or where are you taking this from? You do know that the Smith's police interviews were undertaken by the Police in a controlled environment - yeah? And the same police have stated they believed the witnesses involved

Smith said 60-80% reliable. That's indicative of not being sure. 50 - 50 being honest.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 31-03-2019 10:31PM

Gets tiresome having to through each of these one by one and no matter what conclusive evidence is put in front of you, it’s just spun into another conspiracy but here goes

gozunda wrote: »

With respect that truism works for all the possible scenarios and not just the one you do or do not like.

But you and others are ruling out the possibility of an abduction on the basis of no evidence but cite other less plausible theories will little and in some cases no evidence. So that truism doesn’t work in all cases because I am not ruling out the abduction theory, you are.

gozunda wrote: »

Well you see all that's just your opinion. Stating it doesn't make it true however - one way or the other.

It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact! The scientific tests on the DNA and the cadaver dog evidence do not implicate the McCanns.
The DNA sample that was taken from the car three weeks after the disappearance matched five different people. Some of that DNA matched Madeline, however half of Madeline’s DNA is made up of her mother and the other half is made up of her father not to mention her twin brother and sister were in that car. Therefore, the DNA “evidence” proves absolutely nothing.
Leaving those facts aside for a second, and for arguments sake you believe that the DNA evidence is credible (which it isn’t) that means you would have to believe that the Mccanns moved their dead child’s body in that rental car 3 weeks after her disappearance while the world’s media and police were watching them. Not only that, you would also have to believe that they hid her body for three weeks in a fridge without being discovered. This is a totally and utterly implausible suggestion.

gozunda wrote: »

You do know that the Smith's police interviews were undertaken by the Police in a controlled environment - yeah? And the same police have stated they believed the witnesses involved to be reliable etc.

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter that Smith’s statement was taken by the police, who else would you expect to take the statement? It’s the fact that he had been predisposed to Gerry McCann via the constant media coverage for weeks before he made identified the man he allegedly saw as being Gerry McCann. It can also be the case that the police found Smith to be telling the truth but it is also often the case that that people believe that they are telling the truth and they believe what they have seen to be real. False memory is a real thing and police and investigators are aware of this as it happens so often in police investigations because witnesses want to inject themselves into the investigation of feel that they are helping the police, the attention that comes with it. False memory happens to people every day, did it ever happened to you where you could have swore you did, saw or said something only to find out that you recalled it incorrectly? Or you could have been certain that you were told something by person A only and find out later that you were told by person B. That’s why people write things down, email reminders, why we keep diaries, because our memories are not as good as we think they are.
There is not one person reading this thread who can honestly say that this has never happened to them, not one.

gozunda wrote: »

And that particular detail can be leveled at most anyone who is identified by an witness. Significant issues however come to the front when witnesses are not 'independant' as in the case of Jane Tanner.

In the Tanner sighting, a witness came forward who confirmed that he was carrying his child home from the night crèche that night which gives the Tanner sighing more credibility than the Smith sighting because the witness can corroborate the approximate time, the location and he bore a similar physical and clothing resemblance to the e-fit that was sketched by the police before the witness came forward.

As for the “independence” of Jane Tanner, we now start going back down the rabbit hole of “pact of silence” between the Tapas 7. At the beginning of an investigation you would have to ask the question why would this person lie, and for you to believe that conspiracy you would also have to believe that the McCanns accidentally or intentionally killed their daughter, that Gerry McCann hid or disposed of the body and made it back in time for dinner in approx. 2.5 hours (Madeline was last seen approx. 6pm and Gerry was at the restaurant at approx. 8.30pm. At some point during dinner the McCanns would have told their seven friends what just happened and for everyone to please keep it a secret, they would then have to stage this manic scene when the alarm was raised for Madeline’s disappearance and in the twelve years since not one of them has come forward. As any police investigator will tell you, not only is it difficult for two people to maintain a cover story, especially in a murder or disappearance, but for seven people to maintain a cover story for 12 years and two police investigations would be nothing short of a miracle.
Before you go down the route of “oh look their stories didn’t match, they lied, they changed their stories” this is normal and to be expected in this type of scenario. It would be unusual if all their statements matched. Furthermore, the changes in their statements were not cases we see in other investigations where people give false alibis or say they were in one place when they were in another, or got the day and time wrong. The changes in the statement by the Tapas 7 were differences of 15/20 minutes, where they realised they went in back door instead of a front door or other minor differences where they thought this information would be used to help the police investigation.

gozunda wrote: »

It remains the evidence for all the scenarios is at best circumstantial. Possible evidence which would be likley left behind or observed in the case of an abduction has already been detailed "many times". Just because some have ignored it - does not mean that the absence of such evidence therefore somehow proves abduction!. That indeed would be a crazy theory imo.
Imo 'anyone with experience in police investigations' keeps an open mind especially where there is no absolute evidence and what is believed to have happend is largely based on opinion and speculation

The police will always take new evidence into consideration and if that points them a different direction then that’s where they will go. The police will focus their resources on the most probable scenario which at this stage is an abduction because at this stage they can effectively rule out the parents’ involvement by disproving the DNA, the dog “evidence”, the e-fit for the tanner sighting which was corroborated allows them to rule out other suspects. It’s a process of elimination and the gathering of information and evidence at this stage point points to an abduction.

It blows my mind why people find this so difficult to get their heads around but I suppose that is to be expected when posters come on and make statements like “I trust dogs over people any day”

CollyFlower · 31-03-2019 11:05PM

The night before Madeline went missing she said to her parents something about the twins crying for her.. I also read that they were crying for over 2 hours, is that true? Who reported / confirmed that they were crying for over 2 hours? (Constantly crying for over 2 hours) If that was the case, did they even check on them at all?

MonkieSocks · 31-03-2019 11:46PM

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

For clarification Purposes ONLY

Evidence of Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview I

.

DC 4078 FERGUSON: “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”.

Jane Tanner: “Umm”.

DC 4078 FERGUSON “And you said, you described his hair quite well.
Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”

Jane Tanner “ “I don’t think so.
Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again,
I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”

DC 4078 FERGUSON: “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”.

Jane Tanner “No”

DC 4078 FERGUSON: “You don’t feel it was the same person?”

Jane Tanner “No, I don’t, no”

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

_________________________________

For clarification Purposes ONLY

Evidence of Witness Statement

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date 2007-05-04

No mention of Murat

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

For clarification Purposes ONLY

Evidence of Witness Statement

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m

No mention of Murat

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

All the above statement are the only one's Jane Tanner gave to the Police

gozunda · 01-04-2019 04:35AM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Gets tiresome having to through each of these one by one and no matter what conclusive evidence is put in front of you, it’s just spun into another conspiracy but here goes

It's a hard life teaching the peasants eh? And just because someone points out the flaws in your argument does NOT make them 'conspiracies' (sic) btw.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

But you and others are ruling out the possibility of an abduction on the basis of no evidence but cite other less plausible theories will little and in some cases no evidence. So that truism doesn’t work in all cases because I am not ruling out the abduction theory, you are.

Nope. Wrong. Not ruling out any possibilities. At the present time the paucity of real information as to what happened that night means that they are all more or less unlikley and / or plausible imo.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact! The scientific tests on the DNA and the cadaver dog evidence do not implicate the McCanns.The DNA sample that was taken from the car three weeks after the disappearance matched five different people. Some of that DNA matched Madeline, however half of Madeline’s DNA is made up of her mother and the other half is made up of her father not to mention her twin brother and sister were in that car. Therefore, the DNA “evidence” proves absolutely nothing.
Leaving those facts aside for a second, and for arguments sake you believe that the DNA evidence is credible (which it isn’t) that means you would have to believe that the Mccanns moved their dead child’s body in that rental car 3 weeks after her disappearance while the world’s media and police were watching them. Not only that, you would also have to believe that they hid her body for three weeks in a fridge without being discovered. This is a totally and utterly implausible suggestion.

Nope. Wrong. At present it doesn't implicate anyone. But the stange thing is that the McCanns and some others believe is that the only possible outcome is that the undertaking of such investigations was solely to implicate them. How can they and others not accept the use of this type of investigation could potentially solve the mystery of how and why the child disappeared? Very odd that.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter that Smith’s statement was taken by the police, who else would you expect to take the statement? It’s the fact that he had been predisposed to Gerry McCann via the constant media coverage for weeks before he made identified the man he allegedly saw as being Gerry McCann. It can also be the case that the police found Smith to be telling the truth but it is also often the case that that people believe that they are telling the truth and they believe what they have seen to be real. False memory is a real thing and police and investigators are aware of this as it happens so often in police investigations because witnesses want to inject themselves into the investigation of feel that they are helping the police, the attention that comes with it. False memory happens to people every day, did it ever happened to you where you could have swore you did, saw or said something only to find out that you recalled it incorrectly? Or you could have been certain that you were told something by person A only and find out later that you were told by person B. That’s why people write things down, email reminders, why we keep diaries, because our memories are not as good as we think they are.
There is not one person reading this thread who can honestly say that this has never happened to them, not one.

And yet the same criticism can be levelled at Tanner and all and she was NOT an independent witness. I reckon the police forces are generally better qualified at this type of stuff than the average random boards user tbh

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

In the Tanner sighting, a witness came forward who confirmed that he was carrying his child home from the night crèche that night which gives the Tanner sighing more credibility than the Smith sighting because the witness can corroborate the approximate time, the location and he bore a similar physical and clothing resemblance to the e-fit that was sketched by the police before the witness came forward.

Lucky for her that he did. Even Gerry didn't agree with Janes testimony to the police about that night tbh.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

As for the “independence” of Jane Tanner, we now start going back down the rabbit hole of “pact of silence” between the Tapas 7. At the beginning of an investigation you would have to ask the question why would this person lie, and for you to believe that conspiracy you would also have to believe that the McCanns accidentally or intentionally killed their daughter, that Gerry McCann hid or disposed of the body and made it back in time for dinner in approx. 2.5 hours (Madeline was last seen approx. 6pm and Gerry was at the restaurant at approx. 8.30pm. At some point during dinner the McCanns would have told their seven friends what just happened and for everyone to please keep it a secret, they would then have to stage this manic scene when the alarm was raised for Madeline’s disappearance and in the twelve years since not one of them has come forward. As any police investigator will tell you, not only is it difficult for two people to maintain a cover story, especially in a murder or disappearance, but for seven people to maintain a cover story for 12 years and two police investigations would be nothing short of a miracle.

Nope. Wrong. No 'pact of silence' and no 'conspiracy' needed (sic). Tanner is not 'independent' by virtue of having discussed the crime with others directly related to to the crime victim, having learned/ overheard discussion of same prior to any investigation and having seen / met Robert Murat previously. The main problem is that the Tapas 9 timeline has so many contradictions you could drive a fleet of buses between them and these problems are further involved by the testimony of a range of independent witneses not related or involved with the Tapas 9. It remains we have no idea whether it was the parents or someone else who were 'wot responsible'

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Before you go down the route of “oh look their stories didn’t match, they lied, they changed their stories” this is normal and to be expected in this type of scenario. It would be unusual if all their statements matched. Furthermore, the changes in their statements were not cases we see in other investigations where people give false alibis or say they were in one place when they were in another, or got the day and time wrong. The changes in the statement by the Tapas 7 were differences of 15/20 minutes, where they realised they went in back door instead of a front door or other minor differences where they thought this information would be used to help the police investigation.

Nope. Incorrect. See above.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The police will always take new evidence into consideration and if that points them a different direction then that’s where they will go. The police will focus their resources on the most probable scenario which at this stage is an abduction because at this stage they can effectively rule out the parents’ involvement by disproving the DNA, the dog “evidence”, the e-fit for the tanner sighting which was corroborated allows them to rule out other suspects. It’s a process of elimination and the gathering of information and evidence at this stage point points to an abduction.

Well that's good. That's presuming that they are not ignoring all other possibilities because of political pressure in order to save face or whatever. And no that does not need a conspiracy btw.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It blows my mind why people find this so difficult to get their heads around but I suppose that is to be expected when posters come on and make statements like “I trust dogs over people any day”

It blows my mind why some find all this so difficult to get their heads around but I suppose that is to be expected when posters come on and daft make statements such as " abduction has been shown to be the most likley possible explanation & etc ..."

gozunda · 01-04-2019 05:37AM

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview I

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

Yes I know of this interview - did you not?
Still not replying to me? :rolleyes:

Btw the above Rogatory interview was recorded in April 2008 when Jane once again inexplicably changed her opinion as to whom she saw carrying a child on the night in question.

Background: 6th May 2007. Where a British reporter contacts the UK police and informs them of her suspicions regarding Robert Murat. This is then relayed to the Portuguese Police. The British Police under the instruction of Bob Small of the Leicester Police set up a surveillance operation with Jane Tanner to verify whether the abductor was Murat or otherwise (e 13th May 2007) in PdL. This sets in train a series of events which lead to Robert Murat being declared an 'Arguido'.

The truth of the lie

Chapter 7
SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR AND CONTRADICTIONS

JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the
individual she saw on the night of the disappearance.

She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd.

Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking

On the 14th May 2007 Robert Murat is made an arguido.....

And then fast forward to April 2008 where Jane once again bizarrely changes her mind....

Jane Tanner Rogatory (UK Police interview) April 2008

Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards.

So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant *and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.

4078    “Right”.

Reply    “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.

4078    “No”.

Reply    “But I just thought it was”.

...

Note:
For clarification purposes. JT could not identify Murat before the day of the surveillance operation as she had not met Murat in person previous to this and was therefore not mentioned by name in her primary police interviews. The surveillance operation is compromised* however when Jane and her husband bump into Murat before the actual operation. The surveillance goes ahead anyway....

Now perhaps you would be good enough to detail the exact location in the PJ files of that piece of misogynistic commentary you quoted about the Gaspar statement in your previous post. Because it is certainly not contained at the link in those files which you included... 'woman Scorned' etc etc indeed :rolleyes:

OwlsZat · 01-04-2019 07:13AM

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

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The police will always take new evidence into consideration and if that points them a different direction then that’s where they will go. The police will focus their resources on the most probable scenario which at this stage is an abduction because at this stage they can effectively rule out the parents’ involvement by disproving the DNA, the dog “evidence”, the e-fit for the tanner sighting which was corroborated allows them to rule out other suspects. It’s a process of elimination and the gathering of information and evidence at this stage point points to an abduction.

The Maddie Podcast DNA episode revolves around the advances in DNA testing since the FSS labs did the initial testing. Supposedly Cybergenics in America and one other facility in New Zealand now can solve the case using the existing DNA evidence. They will be able to say with clarity the boot sample. Whos DNA is and isn't present. If this testing isn't completed and make public. You will know it's a police cover up.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 01-04-2019 10:11AM

OwlsZat wrote: »

The Maddie Podcast DNA episode revolves around the advances in DNA testing since the FSS labs did the initial testing. Supposedly Cybergenics in America and one other facility in New Zealand now can solve the case using the existing DNA evidence. They will be able to say with clarity the boot sample. Whos DNA is and isn't present. If this testing isn't completed and make public. You will know it's a police cover up.

We already know who's DNA is present and I know my DNA isn't present so why don't you give us a walkthrough of that scenario in your head and how that would play out. This will be interesting. Let's walk through that, why would there be a police cover up?

micks_address · 01-04-2019 10:52AM

chicorytip wrote: »

What sort of priest would make such a statement, in any event? Like many other claims made by those associated with this case you would have to doubt it's authenticity.

Is this the same priest in the netflix doc? He seems happy out with them

yourdeadwright · 01-04-2019 03:17PM

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Gets tiresome having to through each of these one by one and no matter what conclusive evidence is put in front of you, it’s just spun into another conspiracy but here goes

But you and others are ruling out the possibility of an abduction on the basis of no evidence but cite other less plausible theories will little and in some cases no evidence. So that truism doesn’t work in all cases because I am not ruling out the abduction theory, you are.

It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact! The scientific tests on the DNA and the cadaver dog evidence do not implicate the McCanns.
The DNA sample that was taken from the car three weeks after the disappearance matched five different people. Some of that DNA matched Madeline, however half of Madeline’s DNA is made up of her mother and the other half is made up of her father not to mention her twin brother and sister were in that car. Therefore, the DNA “evidence” proves absolutely nothing.
Leaving those facts aside for a second, and for arguments sake you believe that the DNA evidence is credible (which it isn’t) that means you would have to believe that the Mccanns moved their dead child’s body in that rental car 3 weeks after her disappearance while the world’s media and police were watching them. Not only that, you would also have to believe that they hid her body for three weeks in a fridge without being discovered. This is a totally and utterly implausible suggestion.

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter that Smith’s statement was taken by the police, who else would you expect to take the statement? It’s the fact that he had been predisposed to Gerry McCann via the constant media coverage for weeks before he made identified the man he allegedly saw as being Gerry McCann. It can also be the case that the police found Smith to be telling the truth but it is also often the case that that people believe that they are telling the truth and they believe what they have seen to be real. False memory is a real thing and police and investigators are aware of this as it happens so often in police investigations because witnesses want to inject themselves into the investigation of feel that they are helping the police, the attention that comes with it. False memory happens to people every day, did it ever happened to you where you could have swore you did, saw or said something only to find out that you recalled it incorrectly? Or you could have been certain that you were told something by person A only and find out later that you were told by person B. That’s why people write things down, email reminders, why we keep diaries, because our memories are not as good as we think they are.
There is not one person reading this thread who can honestly say that this has never happened to them, not one.

In the Tanner sighting, a witness came forward who confirmed that he was carrying his child home from the night crèche that night which gives the Tanner sighing more credibility than the Smith sighting because the witness can corroborate the approximate time, the location and he bore a similar physical and clothing resemblance to the e-fit that was sketched by the police before the witness came forward.

As for the “independence” of Jane Tanner, we now start going back down the rabbit hole of “pact of silence” between the Tapas 7. At the beginning of an investigation you would have to ask the question why would this person lie, and for you to believe that conspiracy you would also have to believe that the McCanns accidentally or intentionally killed their daughter, that Gerry McCann hid or disposed of the body and made it back in time for dinner in approx. 2.5 hours (Madeline was last seen approx. 6pm and Gerry was at the restaurant at approx. 8.30pm. At some point during dinner the McCanns would have told their seven friends what just happened and for everyone to please keep it a secret, they would then have to stage this manic scene when the alarm was raised for Madeline’s disappearance and in the twelve years since not one of them has come forward. As any police investigator will tell you, not only is it difficult for two people to maintain a cover story, especially in a murder or disappearance, but for seven people to maintain a cover story for 12 years and two police investigations would be nothing short of a miracle.
Before you go down the route of “oh look their stories didn’t match, they lied, they changed their stories” this is normal and to be expected in this type of scenario. It would be unusual if all their statements matched. Furthermore, the changes in their statements were not cases we see in other investigations where people give false alibis or say they were in one place when they were in another, or got the day and time wrong. The changes in the statement by the Tapas 7 were differences of 15/20 minutes, where they realised they went in back door instead of a front door or other minor differences where they thought this information would be used to help the police investigation.

The police will always take new evidence into consideration and if that points them a different direction then that’s where they will go. The police will focus their resources on the most probable scenario which at this stage is an abduction because at this stage they can effectively rule out the parents’ involvement by disproving the DNA, the dog “evidence”, the e-fit for the tanner sighting which was corroborated allows them to rule out other suspects. It’s a process of elimination and the gathering of information and evidence at this stage point points to an abduction.

It blows my mind why people find this so difficult to get their heads around but I suppose that is to be expected when posters come on and make statements like “I trust dogs over people any day”

The fact of the matter is you like everyone else Police included have NO IDEA what happened that night,

It could have been the parents
it could have been a gang
it could have been a lone wolf,

No one has the foggiest

gozunda · 01-04-2019 03:53PM

Something Else

OwlsZat wrote: »

Smith said 60-80% reliable. That's indicative of not being sure. 50 - 50 being honest.

It was more relating to this reference

Irish officers (Gardai) found him credible. A local garda who interviewed him on behalf of the Portuguese authorities described him as a genuine, decent man who did not want to court the press or seek publicity.

https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2018/02/maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/

I think there was something similar said by a British police officer. I'll check to see if I can find it.

gozunda · 01-04-2019 04:07PM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

We already know who's DNA is present and I know my DNA isn't present so why don't you give us a walkthrough of that scenario in your head and how that would play out. This will be interesting. Let's walk through that, why would there be a police cover up?

No 'we' dont. The results of the tests undertaken were ruled to be inconclusive.

https://meaww.com/madeleine-mc-cann-parents-dna-rental-car-kate-testing-portugal-scientist-technology

As for a 'cover up'? - who knows. I'd say they are very wary of losing face considering that it was the UK police who insisted that the forensic material recovered was tested in the UK by a firm linked to the UK police. But that's just me guessing tbh.

Imo I can think of no reason why that the data etc shouldnt be released for retesting.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 01-04-2019 05:55PM

gozunda wrote: »

No 'we' dont. The the data was deemed to be "too complex for meaningful interpretation" and therefore inconclusive.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/new-dna-analysis-could-help-solve-madeleine-mccann-mystery-expert-says-20190329-p518zx.html

As for a 'cover up'? - who knows. I'd say they are very wary of losing face considering that it was the UK police who insisted that the forensic material recovered was tested in the UK by a firm linked to the UK police. But that's just me guessing tbh.

Imo I can think of no reason why that the data etc shouldnt be released for retesting.

The DNA matched 5 people some of which matched Madeline. This is a know fact. Deal with it.

But it also begs the question that if the DNA was too complex to begin with then why was it used by the police against the McCann's. Amaral has some questions to answers.

cnocbui · 01-04-2019 07:44PM

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

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The DNA matched 5 people some of which matched Madeline. This is a know fact. Deal with it.

But it also begs the question that if the DNA was too complex to begin with then why was it used by the police against the McCann's. Amaral has some questions to answers.

Amaral didn't use it, he completely lied about the result and used the lie.

Interesting tidbit - Joanna Cipriano's body was never found. A close relative's bank account had a deposit of €50,000 at about the same time. When the question of Lenore Cipriano's appeal came up, some family members apparently said they didn't want her back. Hmmmm.....

gozunda · 01-04-2019 07:50PM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The DNA matched 5 people some of which matched Madeline. This is a know fact. Deal with it. But it also begs the question that if the DNA was too complex to begin with then why was it used by the police against the McCann's. Amaral has some questions to answers.

That the data was deemed to be "too complex for meaningful interpretation" and therefore inconclusive is the conclusion of the scientists who undertook the analysis. This is a known fact. Deal with it.

The shenanigans which went on between the UK and Portuguese relating to the results presented by FFS has already been discussed here many times. Look it up if you are ignorant of these facts.

OwlsZat · 01-04-2019 09:01PM

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

gozunda wrote: »

No 'we' dont. The the data was deemed to be "too complex for meaningful interpretation" and therefore inconclusive.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/new-dna-analysis-could-help-solve-madeleine-mccann-mystery-expert-says-20190329-p518zx.html

As for a 'cover up'? - who knows. I'd say they are very wary of losing face considering that it was the UK police who insisted that the forensic material recovered was tested in the UK by a firm linked to the UK police. But that's just me guessing tbh.

Imo I can think of no reason why that the data etc shouldnt be released for retesting.

Listen to the podcast. Can't believe you haven't with the amount of posts you've made here. Too complex. What do you believe that to even mean?

It was the UK police who told the PJ it was a search for a body and not Madeline aparently. Came up in court with the deflamation suit against Amaral.

The McCanns phone call erasing should be followed up forensically. As should the location data.

gozunda · 01-04-2019 09:10PM

Something Else

OwlsZat wrote: »

Listen to the podcast. Can't believe you haven't with the amount of posts you've made here. Too complex. What do you believe that to even mean?

It was the UK police who told the PJ it was a search for a body and not Madeline aparently. Came up in court with the deflamation suit against Amaral.

The McCanns phone call erasing should be followed up forensically. As should the location data.

I have. That quote is from the original forensic report btw. Take a read if you haven't already.
I dont disagree with what you say there btw. You're not doing too bad yourself tbh.

MonkieSocks · 01-04-2019 10:31PM

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

The Met Police already have access to the same type of software used to analyse complex mixed results.

LiRa is EUROFINS FORENSIC SERVICES’s newly validated mixture interpretation software that uses a discrete interpretation model to quantitatively evaluate DNA evidence. LiRa has been developed in-house and is designed to perform likelihood calculations on complex DNA profiles from up to 3 people.. This software has already demonstrated its capability by allowing a statistical weight of evidence to be calculated in cases where this was previously not possible.
Sep 25, 2018

https://www.policeprofessional.com/n...nvestigations/

____________________________________________________

In order to carry out the determined by the 4.a Brigada of Departamento of Investiga?o Criminal of Policia Judici?ia, concerning the process number 201/07.OGALGS, between 15:00h of 4th August, 2007, and 06:30h of 5th August, 2007, were recovered the following evidences in the living room of the apartment 5A, Ocean Club Villas, Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal.

The swab mentioned 3a was recovered from the apartment of 5a where the McCann family were staying,

3A - Stain on the floor recovered with a Dry swab;

It could from of anyone who had stayed in that apartment

v638sg7k1a92bx · 02-04-2019 01:19AM

gozunda wrote: »

That the data was deemed to be "too complex for meaningful interpretation" was the conclusion of the scientists who undertook the analysis. This is a known fact. Deal with it.

The results found that there were matches to 5 people, some of which matched Madeline McCann. 0% of her DNA is made up of her mother and 50% is made up of her father so it is perfectable acceptable that this DNA would be in the car. That is an objectionable fact which you chose to accept that fact or decide that the truth no longer matters and continue to consider the possibility that the McCanns kept their dead child's body in a fridge, hired a rental car and disposed of body three weeks after the disappearance while they world's media and the Portugues police were watching them.

gozunda wrote: »

The shenanigans which went on between the UK and Portuguese relating to the FFS has already been discussed here many times. Look it up if you are ignorant of these facts.

Wrong again. Shenanigans are not facts. I'll rely on the scientific evidence and you can rely on hearsay.

gozunda wrote: »

Imo the biggest mistake was allowing the British authorities to take over the DNA analysis through a company which has not only now been wound up but whose methods have been subject to serious criticism even outside the mccann case.

As to the usual criticism of Amaral, the Portuguese etc - the facts are that FFS didn't retract their preliminary findings on the publishing of the second report even though these contained significant differences

Unfortunate that you don't apply the same level of scepticism to Amaral who was made a formal suspect in a very similar case of a child abduction/disappearance, the day after Madeline McCann went missing where he came up with the same theory that the parents were involved the disappearance, with dodgy DNA evidence, where the body was allegedly kept in a fridge!!! Any of this sound familiar? You should apply the same level of scepticism to those facts that you do to verified forensic DNA evidence.

gozunda · 02-04-2019 05:47AM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The results found that there were matches to 5 people, some of which matched Madeline McCann. 0% of her DNA is made up of her mother and 50% is made up of her father so it is perfectable acceptable that this DNA would be in the car. That is an objectionable fact which you chose to accept that fact or decide that the truth no longer matters and continue to consider the possibility that the McCanns kept their dead child's body in a fridge, hired a rental car and disposed of body three weeks after the disappearance while they world's media and the Portugues police were watching them. Wrong again. Shenanigans are not facts. I'll rely on the scientific evidence and you can rely on hearsay. Unfortunate that you don't apply the same level of scepticism to Amaral who was made a formal suspect in a very similar case of a child abduction / disappearance, the day after Madeline McCann went missing where he came up with the same theory that the parents were involved the disappearance, with dodgy DNA evidence, where the body was allegedly kept in a fridge!!! Any of this sound familiar? You should apply the same level of scepticism to those facts that you do to verified forensic DNA evidence.

Unless you are a geneticist and qualified to interpret the results of that report - I would suggest you leave the expert opinion to the experts - which btw your interpretation is clearly not. Please put down the ususl tabloid reports on this case.

I have quoted from the actual report as published by FFS. Your imaginings are amusing but unfortunately bear no resemblance to any 'facts' no matter how much you may wish that to be so.

As stated FFS were flagged as being criticised for the method employed in a range of high profile casesaround the time of the Madeleine investigation. They have now been shut down - all that is fact.

Btw I do not postulate anything about the McCanns. There are many possibilities - see the poll for details - the fate of the child remains unknown. That is what is being discussed. But please continue to use the hyperbole.

Btw I am sceptical of all the players in this case. Unfortunately the only ones I see most often and constantly promoted is the usual - [/i]'it was everyone else's fault- nothing to see here bull****e'[/i]. Hence the scrutiny and scepticism of stupid blanket statements . Dont like that? Tough.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 02-04-2019 11:04AM

gozunda wrote: »

Unless you are a geneticist and qualified to interpret the results of that report - I would suggest you leave the expert opinion to the experts - which btw your interpretation is clearly not. Please put down the ususl tabloid reports on this case.

I have quoted from the actual report as published by FFS. Your imaginings are amusing but unfortunately bear no resemblance to any 'facts' no matter how much you may wish that to be so.

The only tabloid reports being cited are the edited FFS results that were leaked to the media which you keep referring to. The FFS haven't retracted their report because there was no need to, their original report was massively qualified but the PJ selectively chose which parts of the report to publish.

Fact of the matter is the the FFS report proves nothing. Absolutely nothing. So why would you keep invoking this document as evidence. Nothing!

gozunda wrote: »

As stated FFS were flagged as being criticised for the method employed in a range of high profile casesaround the time of the Madeleine investigation. They have now been shut down - all that is fact.

This is just hearsay and irrelevant. Next!

gozunda wrote: »

Btw I do not postulate anything about the McCanns. There are many possibilities which are under discussion- see the poll for details - the fate of the child remains unknown. That is what is being discussed - not whether you side with the McCanns or otherwise. But please continue to use the hyperbole and attempt to shut down discussion..

More wishy washy talk here, nothing of substance. Next!

gozunda wrote: »

Btw I am sceptical of all the players in this case. Unfortunately the only ones I see most often and constantly promoted are the usual - 'it was everyone else's fault- nothing to see here bull****e'. Hence the scrutiny and scepticism of stupid blanket statements . Dont like that? Tough.

Nothing of substance here again.

Creol1 · 02-04-2019 11:10AM

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Unfortunate that you don't apply the same level of scepticism to Amaral who was made a formal suspect in a very similar case of a child abduction/disappearance, the day after Madeline McCann went missing where he came up with the same theory that the parents were involved the disappearance, with dodgy DNA evidence, where the body was allegedly kept in a fridge!!! Any of this sound familiar?

Amaral was never made a formal suspect in a child abduction. If he had been, I am sure the McCanns would have wasted no time in bringing it to the public's attention in their battles with him.

OwlsZat · 02-04-2019 11:11AM

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

Have the Met said they aren't investigating the McCanns or Tanner. Surely they haven't ruled anyone in or out. To explain to Tickers why I believe the parents are implicated.

1. All the lies
They might lie because they were being negligent fair enough but then why is Jane Tanner lying? The McCanns end up lying so much Gerry even ends up talking about the window saying "and I'm not lying about that". I believe Tanner is lying on their behalf because there is shared culpability. Kate McCann and Fiona Payne are both qualified anaesthetists I believe they accidentally killed Madeline. Tanner lies about text messages, lies about the abductor witness statement, lies in the reconstruction, and the McCanns the very same. They lie about checking on the kids, line of sight, the window, the bed... the list of their lies literally goes on forever. The problem is it's much harder to lie then tell the truth especially when multiple people are telling the lie and your having to do it over and over.

2. The phones calls/messages
Tanner has a message she sent someone a year previous just before the discovery. She sent the same number another message 30 minutes previous. She doesn't have that. Both Kate and Gerry's phone logs had been altered selected calls are deleted out of the logs but the record still show they took place. I believe these calls would tell the full story. They were likely to other medical professionals desperately seeking what they could do to resuscitate/hide Madeline.

3. The phones triangulation
Phone record signals show the McCanns visited a new area 30 minutes from PDL just before the Cadevar and Blood dog were due. Twice ie,, once to scope it out, once to move the body

4. The dogs
The dogs might be unreliable but they both signaled in the rental car boot. They are validating each other signals. The dog hander made the call for the Met to reclassify the case to that of locating a corpse. That's a big call and you'd have to trust his experience.

5. The boot
A witness who lived beside the McCann villa which they stayed in after the "abduction" gave a statement saying the rental car's boot was left open every night across July. I believe the McCanns were doing this to try to let all odors escape. Both the sun and wind are known as two great ways to let these odors escape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4Ea8TLvuWE&t=1s

cnocbui · 02-04-2019 11:21AM

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

Do you know that network providers keep comprehensive records for years - effectively forever when any authority asks for details?

There can be no mystery about phone calls other than 'supposedly' the content. The Met and PJ would know exactly who rang whom, and when.

The PJ have actually logged and followed up on, just about every single mobile phone call in PDL at around the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

No blood found in the car, so BS.

Boom_Bap · 02-04-2019 11:29AM

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

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The only tabloid reports being cited are the edited FFS results that were leaked to the media which you keep referring to. The FFS haven't retracted their report because there was no need to, their original report was massively qualified but the PJ selectively chose which parts of the report to publish.

Fact of the matter is the the FFS report proves nothing. Absolutely nothing. So why would you keep invoking this document as evidence. Nothing!

This is just hearsay and irrelevant. Next!

More wishy washy talk here, nothing of substance. Next!

Nothing of substance here again.

I think I mentioned before that this was a discussion forum, not a dismissal forum.

Madeleine McCann

Comments