Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Madeleine McCann
Options
Comments
-
Again, defending the McCanns is more important than anything else it seems. Other cases are irrelevant, this case should be taken on its own merits. With the lies, the dogs and so on, there was enough to suspect the McCanns. They may have just been covering up for the neglect of their children but when everything was put together, you can see why they became suspects.
What “lies” and dogs are you referring to?0 -
Banana Republic. wrote: »Do you think Amaral is a serial abductor and a serial killer?
I think there is more “evidence” to suspect him over the McCanns.0 -
Banana Republic. wrote: »Yea it’s not a football match lads, if you want to match lies then Amaral is the only convicted liar but doesn’t mean The Mc Canns haven’t lied time after time or everything they’ve said is the 100% truth. Either way Madeline is the biggest loser in this all so keeping score ain’t going to solve it. Listen to the Australian podcasts and you’ll see enough lies to wonder about certain theories.
What are these McCann lies that everyone is taking about?0 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)If you come at this from a mathematical point of view it would suggest it is extremely unlikely to be the parents.
The odds of a parent killing a child by accident would not be that uncommon. But the odds of a parent killing a child and then wanting to cover it up would be extremely rare. Then because obviously in this case both parents would have had to have known about the accident, then you would have to multiply the odds of something rare (a parent covering up an accident) by two. So if a couple had accidentally killed their child, the odds of one of them suggesting to cover it up is low, but the odds of both wanting to do it is extremely low. Then there is also suggestions from people who think it was a cover up that they got help from the their tapas friends. This brings more people along into the cover where it just becomes unbelievable. To say 3 or more people with no criminal record would go a long with a cover up of the death of a child... is there really that many of you who believe that?
Then look at the logistics of how they would of hid a body in a foreign country with no access to a car in a small timeframe. How they went out that night and had dinner and drinks knowing only an hour or two before that they had killed their child. How would any parent be able to digest food and put up a conversation if they had just done that.
The theory of the parents is just to unbelievable.
Compare it with the alternative. A known pedophile who robs apartments was living 1.2km away. A phone call puts him at the Ocean Bar that night. He leaves Portugal shortly after the disappearance.0 -
Accident happened, parents hid bodyTristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »What “lies” and dogs are you referring to?
Oh, you're not familiar with the case in question. I've kindly supplied some reading for you:
1. All five markers in a sample found under the tiles, behind the sofa (exactly where Eddie, the EVRD [Cadaver] dog and Keela, the CSI [Human Blood] dog, both indicated), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile
2. Fifteen of the markers, in a sample found under the luggage liner of the McCann's Scenic (hired 24 days later), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile
3. Shutters were not jemmied or forced, as claimed by the parents
4. No signs of forced entry anywhere in the apartment
5. No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window, including:
6. No Lichen disturbance
7. No Fibres
8. No Finger prints of abductor
9. No footprints on bed
10. Only finger prints on the window are those of Kate
DOGS
11. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the McCann's wardrobe in 5A
12. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A
13. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the veranda outside the parent?s bedroom
14. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the flower bed at the back of 5A
15. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a white sleeveless top belonging to Kate
16. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to checked trousers belonging to Kate
17. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a child?s red T shirt
18. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a toy belonging to Madeleine
19. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's rental Scenic car
20. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the passenger's door of the McCann's Renault Scenic
21. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A (exact same spot as alerted to by the EVRD dog)
22. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's hire car
23. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the interior of the hire vehicle's boot
TANNER SIGHTING
The only perceived evidence of abduction, being the sighting by Jane Tanner at around 21.15 is riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting testimonies, being the fact that
24. None of the scent tracking Search & Rescue dogs followed that trail, and in fact followed another trail completely
25. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to spot the ?abductor?, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Gerry
26. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to see Jane Tanner walking by, despite being on the same narrow sidewalk at the same time
27. Gerry himself failed to spot the abductor, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Jeremy
28. Gerry contradicted Jeremy by stating that their chat was on the opposite side of the road from that as described, and drawn on a map, by Mr Wilkins
29. Gerry also contradicted Tanner, by stating that his chat with Jeremy was on the opposite side of the road from that mentioned by Jane
30. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.15
31. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine?s bedroom while walking from her apartment at 21.20
32. Jane never bumped into Jeremy Wilkins (who had walked back to his apartment after the chat with Gerry) while walking back from her apartment at 21.20
33. Russell O'Brien failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment at 21.30
34. Matthew Oldfield failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment, which was right next door, at 21.30
35. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains while checking on Madeleine and the twins
36. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking from his apartment back to the Tapas at around 21.35
37. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.45
38. Russell failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking back from his apartment at 21.50
39. Tanner's description has changed several times
40. It makes no sense, especially if (as the McCann's claim) that this was a well planned abduction, that the abductor walks across the very road used by the parents to check on their children
41... The abductor failed to hear either Tanner, Gerry or Wilkins, and continued on the path that would put him in the full vision of all three
42... If the abductor had lifted Madeleine out of the bed, then he would be carrying with her head to his right hand side, not on the left as in Tanner's claimed sighting
SMITH SIGHTING
43. The Smith family (independent witnesses) sighting has, with the exception of one brief mention two years later, been completely ignored by the McCann's and their private detectives from day one (no e-fit / press conference / media onslaught) despite the fact that?
44. There was huge publicity given to the Tanner sighting, including the pressure put on the Portuguese authorities to get the details out there
45. The Smith family descriptions have never changed
46. The sighting was only minutes before the 'alarm' was raised
47. The sighting was only 250 metres from the apartment
48. This sighting would have explained many of the inconsistencies of the Tanner sighting as mentioned above
49. There were several members of the family who witnessed this man carrying a child
50. The general area and timing of the sighting made by the family can be corroborated by a restaurant receipt for that evening
51. The general description of the man could fit Gerry McCann
52. The description of the child matches Madeleine
53. The type of trousers match those possessed by Gerry
54. Trousers match in terms of colour
55. Trousers even match in terms of the visible buttons as mentioned by one of the family
56. Martin and his wife later identified the carrier, through the distinctive carrying style, as being Gerry McCann
Given much of the above, the remarkable coincidence that?
57. The pressure put on the PJ to highlight the Tanner sighting came at exactly the same time as the Smith family were being brought back to Portugal to go over the sighting in more detail
58. The sighting was in a different part of town from the Tanner sighting
59. It was also heading in a completely different direction
60. The carrying style was completely different to that of the Tanner sighting
61. And yet the McCann's deliberately altered the Smith sighting carrying style so as to match that of the Tanner sighting, during the only ever significant mention of the sighting, in a McCann made reconstruction aired only a few days after Amaral's (in which he included the Smith sighting)
62. They also tried to morph the carrier into the same man as seen by Tanner, despite significant differences in descriptions
BEHAVIOURAL
There are many instances of strange behaviour from the McCann's, not being consistent with parents of a child abducted by paedophiles, including (but not limited to)?
63. Kate complaining about the speed of a police vehicle while being take to look into a new lead at PJ HQ (sighting caught on CCTV)
64. Gerry laughing and joking and sucking lollipops while one of the most significant abduction leads came to a climax
65. Very little mention of the huge award available over the last three years
66. Despite raising millions through their fund, and spending thousands on media monitoring, they continue to charge for travel kits and for printing off posters designed to help find their daughter
67. Lack of physical searching during the first few days
68. Lack of physically handing out leaflets / putting up posters themselves
69. Hiring cowboy private detectives with no expertise or experience in finding children
70. Gerry smirking when asked by a Sky News presenter how he feels when someone comes forward who is certain that they have seen Madeleine
71. When up to 14 possible sightings of Madeleine emerged in Malta, resulting in a huge police operation including Interpol, the McCann's hot footed it to Germany for more TV plugs
72. When the most promising sighting of all was made in Belgium, a 110% certain sighting by a child therapist, considered so credible by authorities that they despatched a forensics team, the McCanns went looking in Huelva, Spain
73. Gerry's initial claim, as overheard by another holidaymaker, within minutes of the alarm being raised, that Madeleine had been taken by paedophiles. How did he know that?
74. Gerry caught on Camera laughing his head off only a few days after his daughter had been abducted by paedophiles as claimed by the parents
75. Despite refuting the claims of the dogs / Scenic findings, the McCann's continued to submit ridiculous reasoning for them, including Sea bass, sweat, dirty nappies, rubbish en-route to dump, rotten meat, and attending to 6 bodies before the holiday, amongst others
76. Kate refusing to answer 48 police questions
77. The McCann's and their holiday friends all refusing to attend a police reconstruction
78. Despite the Madeleine's disappearance looking like an inside job from the outset, the McCann's and their friends were happy enough returning their children to the MW creche just hours later, despite not knowing if any of the staff were involved
79. When Kate raised the alarm, she ran back to the table, leaving the twins in the apartment while not knowing whether the abductor(s) were still onsite
80. Kate shouting They've taken her!?, not distinguishing between Madeleine and her sister Amelie
STATEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
90. When describing Madeleine sleeping that night, Kate said she was under the covers where as Gerry mentioned that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal
91. Matthew Oldfield initially claimed that Kate and the children were at the tennis courts when he arrived there at 18.30 where as the rest of the Tapas 9 claim otherwise
92. David Payne's 18.30 / 18.40 check on Kate (last person out with the parents to see Madeleine) : According to Kate the sliding door was closed, and that David didn't actually enter the apartment, remaining at the door. But according to David, the door was open and he definitely entered the apartment.
93. Matt Oldfield chivvying up the Payne's at 21.00 : Matt claims he passed them near the top of the road, but David claims to have passed him by the swimming pool, Fiona claims to have passed him outside 5A, and Dianne Webster initially claimed that Matthew wasn't even there.
94. Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child. He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. However, according to Jane Tanner it's three o' clock in the morning when she informs Gerry McCann for the first time
OTHER
95. Various other possible withheld evidence as hinted at, including intercepted phone calls / text messages
96. Independent witness statement (from McCann neighbour) regarding the luggage door of the McCann's hire vehicle being open morning, noon and night
97. Gerry's missing hold-all / tennis / kit bag which he was seen with the day Madeleine disappeared cannot be located by detectives
98. Gaspar (UK GPs) statements detailing concerns about the father and one of his friends on holiday with them
99. Yvonne Martin (Social Worker) statement regarding concerns about the same friend
100. This same friend calls the Metropolitan Police Crime Specialist Director (a number which is also used as the out of hours contact for the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Team) 24 hours after the alarm0 -
Advertisement
-
ittakestwo wrote: »If you come at this from a mathematical point of view it would suggest it is extremely unlikely to be the parents.
The odds of a parent killing a child by accident would not be that uncommon. But the odds of a parent killing a child and then wanting to cover it up would be extremely rare. Then because obviously in this case both parents would have had to have known about the accident, then you would have to multiply the odds of something rare (a parent covering up an accident) by two. So if a couple had accidentally killed their child, the odds of one of them suggesting to cover it up is low, but the odds of both wanting to do it is extremely low. Then there is also suggestions from people who think it was a cover up that they got help from the their tapas friends. This brings more people along into the cover where it just becomes unbelievable. To say 3 or more people with no criminal record would go a long with a cover up of the death of a child... is there really that many of you who believe that?
Then look at the logistics of how they would of hid a body in a foreign country with no access to a car in a small timeframe. How they went out that night and had dinner and drinks knowing only an hour or two before that they had killed their child. How would any parent be able to digest food and put up a conversation if they had just done that.
The theory of the parents is just to unbelievable.
Compare it with the alternative. A known pedophile who robs apartments was living 1.2km away. A phone call puts him at the Ocean Bar that night. He leaves Portugal shortly after the disappearance.
Not only that. What is the probability of accidentally killing your child, disposing the body, cleaning up the crime scene which would involve lifting and laying tiles, all within a couple of hours, then going to dinner and asking the other people at the table to help you cover up the murder.0 -
Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »What are these McCann lies that everyone is taking about?
Listen to the podcasts, it’s a long listen but worth it to know facts. I’ve still another 2 to go. https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/maddie/id1453778697?i=10004310025970 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)Oh, you're not familiar with the case in question. I've kindly supplied some reading for you:
1. All five markers in a sample found under the tiles, behind the sofa (exactly where Eddie, the EVRD [Cadaver] dog and Keela, the CSI [Human Blood] dog, both indicated), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile
2. Fifteen of the markers, in a sample found under the luggage liner of the McCann's Scenic (hired 24 days later), are 100% compatible with Madeleine's DNA profile
3. Shutters were not jemmied or forced, as claimed by the parents
4. No signs of forced entry anywhere in the apartment
5. No physical evidence of anyone having entered or left via the window, including:
6. No Lichen disturbance
7. No Fibres
8. No Finger prints of abductor
9. No footprints on bed
10. Only finger prints on the window are those of Kate
DOGS
11. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the McCann's wardrobe in 5A
12. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A
13. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the veranda outside the parent?s bedroom
14. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the flower bed at the back of 5A
15. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a white sleeveless top belonging to Kate
16. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to checked trousers belonging to Kate
17. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a child?s red T shirt
18. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to a toy belonging to Madeleine
19. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's rental Scenic car
20. Eddie, the EVRD (Cadaver) dog, positively alerted to the passenger's door of the McCann's Renault Scenic
21. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted at the back of the sofa in 5A (exact same spot as alerted to by the EVRD dog)
22. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the key of the McCann's hire car
23. Keela, the CSI (Human Blood) dog, positively alerted to the interior of the hire vehicle's boot
TANNER SIGHTING
The only perceived evidence of abduction, being the sighting by Jane Tanner at around 21.15 is riddled with inconsistencies and conflicting testimonies, being the fact that
24. None of the scent tracking Search & Rescue dogs followed that trail, and in fact followed another trail completely
25. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to spot the ?abductor?, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Gerry
26. Jeremy Wilkins (independent witness) failed to see Jane Tanner walking by, despite being on the same narrow sidewalk at the same time
27. Gerry himself failed to spot the abductor, despite being only yards away, while chatting to Jeremy
28. Gerry contradicted Jeremy by stating that their chat was on the opposite side of the road from that as described, and drawn on a map, by Mr Wilkins
29. Gerry also contradicted Tanner, by stating that his chat with Jeremy was on the opposite side of the road from that mentioned by Jane
30. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.15
31. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine?s bedroom while walking from her apartment at 21.20
32. Jane never bumped into Jeremy Wilkins (who had walked back to his apartment after the chat with Gerry) while walking back from her apartment at 21.20
33. Russell O'Brien failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment at 21.30
34. Matthew Oldfield failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to his apartment, which was right next door, at 21.30
35. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains while checking on Madeleine and the twins
36. Matthew failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking from his apartment back to the Tapas at around 21.35
37. Jane failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking to her apartment at 21.45
38. Russell failed to spot the open window and shutters and blowing curtains coming from Madeleine's bedroom while walking back from his apartment at 21.50
39. Tanner's description has changed several times
40. It makes no sense, especially if (as the McCann's claim) that this was a well planned abduction, that the abductor walks across the very road used by the parents to check on their children
41... The abductor failed to hear either Tanner, Gerry or Wilkins, and continued on the path that would put him in the full vision of all three
42... If the abductor had lifted Madeleine out of the bed, then he would be carrying with her head to his right hand side, not on the left as in Tanner's claimed sighting
SMITH SIGHTING
43. The Smith family (independent witnesses) sighting has, with the exception of one brief mention two years later, been completely ignored by the McCann's and their private detectives from day one (no e-fit / press conference / media onslaught) despite the fact that?
44. There was huge publicity given to the Tanner sighting, including the pressure put on the Portuguese authorities to get the details out there
45. The Smith family descriptions have never changed
46. The sighting was only minutes before the 'alarm' was raised
47. The sighting was only 250 metres from the apartment
48. This sighting would have explained many of the inconsistencies of the Tanner sighting as mentioned above
49. There were several members of the family who witnessed this man carrying a child
50. The general area and timing of the sighting made by the family can be corroborated by a restaurant receipt for that evening
51. The general description of the man could fit Gerry McCann
52. The description of the child matches Madeleine
53. The type of trousers match those possessed by Gerry
54. Trousers match in terms of colour
55. Trousers even match in terms of the visible buttons as mentioned by one of the family
56. Martin and his wife later identified the carrier, through the distinctive carrying style, as being Gerry McCann
Given much of the above, the remarkable coincidence that?
57. The pressure put on the PJ to highlight the Tanner sighting came at exactly the same time as the Smith family were being brought back to Portugal to go over the sighting in more detail
58. The sighting was in a different part of town from the Tanner sighting
59. It was also heading in a completely different direction
60. The carrying style was completely different to that of the Tanner sighting
61. And yet the McCann's deliberately altered the Smith sighting carrying style so as to match that of the Tanner sighting, during the only ever significant mention of the sighting, in a McCann made reconstruction aired only a few days after Amaral's (in which he included the Smith sighting)
62. They also tried to morph the carrier into the same man as seen by Tanner, despite significant differences in descriptions
BEHAVIOURAL
There are many instances of strange behaviour from the McCann's, not being consistent with parents of a child abducted by paedophiles, including (but not limited to)?
63. Kate complaining about the speed of a police vehicle while being take to look into a new lead at PJ HQ (sighting caught on CCTV)
64. Gerry laughing and joking and sucking lollipops while one of the most significant abduction leads came to a climax
65. Very little mention of the huge award available over the last three years
66. Despite raising millions through their fund, and spending thousands on media monitoring, they continue to charge for travel kits and for printing off posters designed to help find their daughter
67. Lack of physical searching during the first few days
68. Lack of physically handing out leaflets / putting up posters themselves
69. Hiring cowboy private detectives with no expertise or experience in finding children
70. Gerry smirking when asked by a Sky News presenter how he feels when someone comes forward who is certain that they have seen Madeleine
71. When up to 14 possible sightings of Madeleine emerged in Malta, resulting in a huge police operation including Interpol, the McCann's hot footed it to Germany for more TV plugs
72. When the most promising sighting of all was made in Belgium, a 110% certain sighting by a child therapist, considered so credible by authorities that they despatched a forensics team, the McCanns went looking in Huelva, Spain
73. Gerry's initial claim, as overheard by another holidaymaker, within minutes of the alarm being raised, that Madeleine had been taken by paedophiles. How did he know that?
74. Gerry caught on Camera laughing his head off only a few days after his daughter had been abducted by paedophiles as claimed by the parents
75. Despite refuting the claims of the dogs / Scenic findings, the McCann's continued to submit ridiculous reasoning for them, including Sea bass, sweat, dirty nappies, rubbish en-route to dump, rotten meat, and attending to 6 bodies before the holiday, amongst others
76. Kate refusing to answer 48 police questions
77. The McCann's and their holiday friends all refusing to attend a police reconstruction
78. Despite the Madeleine's disappearance looking like an inside job from the outset, the McCann's and their friends were happy enough returning their children to the MW creche just hours later, despite not knowing if any of the staff were involved
79. When Kate raised the alarm, she ran back to the table, leaving the twins in the apartment while not knowing whether the abductor(s) were still onsite
80. Kate shouting They've taken her!?, not distinguishing between Madeleine and her sister Amelie
STATEMENT INCONSISTENCIES
90. When describing Madeleine sleeping that night, Kate said she was under the covers where as Gerry mentioned that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal
91. Matthew Oldfield initially claimed that Kate and the children were at the tennis courts when he arrived there at 18.30 where as the rest of the Tapas 9 claim otherwise
92. David Payne's 18.30 / 18.40 check on Kate (last person out with the parents to see Madeleine) : According to Kate the sliding door was closed, and that David didn't actually enter the apartment, remaining at the door. But according to David, the door was open and he definitely entered the apartment.
93. Matt Oldfield chivvying up the Payne's at 21.00 : Matt claims he passed them near the top of the road, but David claims to have passed him by the swimming pool, Fiona claims to have passed him outside 5A, and Dianne Webster initially claimed that Matthew wasn't even there.
94. Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child. He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. However, according to Jane Tanner it's three o' clock in the morning when she informs Gerry McCann for the first time
OTHER
95. Various other possible withheld evidence as hinted at, including intercepted phone calls / text messages
96. Independent witness statement (from McCann neighbour) regarding the luggage door of the McCann's hire vehicle being open morning, noon and night
97. Gerry's missing hold-all / tennis / kit bag which he was seen with the day Madeleine disappeared cannot be located by detectives
98. Gaspar (UK GPs) statements detailing concerns about the father and one of his friends on holiday with them
99. Yvonne Martin (Social Worker) statement regarding concerns about the same friend
100. This same friend calls the Metropolitan Police Crime Specialist Director (a number which is also used as the out of hours contact for the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Team) 24 hours after the alarm
What lies are you referring to? Can you formulate your own argument without the repeated copy and paste spam nonsense?0 -
ittakestwo wrote: »If you come at this from a mathematical point of view it would suggest it is extremely unlikely to be the parents.
The odds of a parent killing a child by accident would not be that uncommon. But the odds of a parent killing a child and then wanting to cover it up would be extremely rare. Then because obviously in this case both parents would have had to have known about the accident, then you would have to multiply the odds of something rare (a parent covering up an accident) by two. So if a couple had accidentally killed their child, the odds of one of them suggesting to cover it up is low, but the odds of both wanting to do it is extremely low. Then there is also suggestions from people who think it was a cover up that they got help from the their tapas friends. This brings more people along into the cover where it just becomes unbelievable. To say 3 or more people with no criminal record would go a long with a cover up of the death of a child... is there really that many of you who believe that?
Then look at the logistics of how they would of hid a body in a foreign country with no access to a car in a small timeframe. How they went out that night and had dinner and drinks knowing only an hour or two before that they had killed their child. How would any parent be able to digest food and put up a conversation if they had just done that.
The theory of the parents is just to unbelievable.
Compare it with the alternative. A known pedophile who robs apartments was living 1.2km away. A phone call puts him at the Ocean Bar that night. He leaves Portugal shortly after the disappearance.
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.0 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)Banana Republic. wrote: »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.
But if you factor in the fact that Gerry was out playing tennis from 6pm to 7pm that evening, that narrows down the timeline even further.
This gives them a time frame of exactly 1.5 hours to hatch a plan, dispose of her body, clean up, get ready for dinner and leave the apartment for dinner.
Gerry's whereabouts were again accounted for at around 9pm by independent witness Jeremy Wilkins, who chatted to him at the steps of the apartment for around 5-10 minutes and says he left to go back to the restaurant afterwards.
Logistically, it would be very difficult, almost impossible in fact, to have carried out such a sophisticated cover-up and disposal in the allotted time frame. To the point of accuracy that she has never been located to this day.
I simply have never heard one counter argument that can explain, in any credible way, how, when, where or why they could have done it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »Not only that. What is the probability of accidentally killing your child, disposing the body, cleaning up the crime scene which would involve lifting and laying tiles, all within a couple of hours, then going to dinner and asking the other people at the table to help you cover up the murder.
Very low I'd say.
Saying that. Just shooting the breeze here and everyone can calm down it's not my theory of what happened.
But if they say suffocated her. There wouldn't be much to "clean" bar getting rid of the body. Not an easy task in itself. But no tiles need to come up etc.
You also don't need get the people at the table to cover it up. Why would they need to be involved? They could assume it was a kidnapping like anyone else. There's no "need" for them to be in on it.
The alarm will be raised when the first person see's there's no one in the bed and you're as you were...
**I do not think this what happened**
Just sayin'0 -
Banana Republic. wrote: »Listen to the podcasts, it’s a long listen but worth it to know facts. I’ve still another 2 to go. https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/maddie/id1453778697?i=1000431002597
I read the reviews of that podcast and Im not going to listen to it. Why can’t you tell me?0 -
Accident happened, parents hid bodyBanana 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.
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.0 -
Because conspiracy theorists are hanging their hat on “the blood” behind the sofa and maintaining that there is a cover up by the Tapas 7 because apparently they all told “lies” when their times didn’t match up exactly.Very low I'd say.
Saying that. Just shooting the breeze here and everyone can calm down it's not my theory of what happened.
But if they say suffocated her. There wouldn't be much to "clean" bar getting rid of the body. Not an easy task in itself. But no tiles need to come up etc.
You also don't need get the people at the table to cover it up. Why would they need to be involved? They could assume it was a kidnapping like anyone else. There's no "need" for them to be in on it.
The alarm will be raised when the first person see's there's no one in the bed and you're as you were...
**I do not think this what happened**
Just sayin'
Be that as it may, it doesn’t explain how they would dispose of a body in a foreign country, within a very narrow timeframe which means it would have been disposed of within close proximity to the apartment and when you consider the searches that were carried in that area and the time it would take to dispose of a body so that it wouldn’t be found.0 -
Accident happened, parents hid bodydark crystal wrote: »But if you factor in the fact that Gerry was out playing tennis from 6pm to 7pm that evening, that narrows down the timeline even further.
This gives them a time frame of exactly 1.5 hours to hatch a plan, dispose of her body, clean up, get ready for dinner and leave the apartment for dinner.
Gerry's whereabouts were again accounted for at around 9pm by independent witness Jeremy Wilkins, who chatted to him at the steps of the apartment for around 5-10 minutes and says he left to go back to the restaurant afterwards.
Logistically, it would be very difficult, almost impossible in fact, to have carried out such a sophisticated cover-up and disposal in the allotted time frame. To the point of accuracy that she has never been located to this day.
I simply have never heard one counter argument that can explain, in any credible way, how, when, where or why they could have done it.
You edited his post just to discuss the McCanns. Why no interest in discussing other theories?0 -
Accident happened, parents hid bodyHas anyone mentioned the fact that it was very irresponsible to leave the children in the apartnent by tgemselves while they go drinking?0
-
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)Has anyone mentioned the fact that it was very irresponsible to leave the children in the apartnent by tgemselves while they go drinking?
No, it's never been mentioned before. You should expound on that original thought at length, we could do with a fresh angle.0 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)You edited his post just to discuss the McCanns. Why no interest in discussing other theories?
I edited it because that is the aspect of the post I wished to discuss. It helps clarify what my reply relates to in the context of the discussion at hand.
Which other theories do you wish me to discuss based on the post I quoted that you believe I haven't discussed before?0 -
Accident happened, parents hid bodyNo, it's never been mentioned before. You should expound on that original thought at length, we could do with a fresh angle.
I thought youd never ask, Gerry and The wife whos name i cant think of are bad, wine is good, but drinking is bad. Drinking without your kids is good but drinking when your supposed to be looking after your kids is bad. Killing your kid is bad but getting away with it is good. Neglecting your kids is bad but its better than killing them. Ideally your looking to go drinking with a babysitter, if you cant do that go with the wife, and dont kill kids. Gerry failed at least 2 of the last 3 things there what a loser.0 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)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.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Accident happened, parents hid bodydark crystal wrote: »I edited it because that is the aspect of the post I wished to discuss. It helps clarify what my reply relates to in the context of the discussion at hand.
Which other theories do you wish me to discuss based on the post I quoted that you believe I haven't discussed before?
You just want to discuss the McCanns. It's really restricting this thread.
Maybe a new one should be set up for those who just want to discuss the McCanns didn't do it line and then this can be left for neutral observers who want to discuss all theories. Just a thought.
0 -
-
You just want to discuss the McCanns. It's really restricting this thread.
Maybe a new one should be set up for those who just want to discuss the McCanns didn't do it line and then this can be left for neutral observers who want to discuss all theories. Just a thought.
We’re discussing the possibility of Amaral being involved in the disappearance and trying to implicate the McCanns to deflect attention away from himself. Who else would be in a better position to do it other than him? He also had prior knowledge of CB how did he know about that and he is also a convicted liar. Very suspicious.0 -
Accident happened, parents hid bodyExcept 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.
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.0 -
Accident happened, parents hid bodyTristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »We’re discussing the possibility of Amaral being involved in the disappearance and trying to implicate the McCanns to deflect attention away from himself. Who else would be in a better position to do it other than him? He also had prior knowledge of CB how did he know about that and he is also a convicted liar. Very suspicious.
Welcome to ignore. Slán leat.0 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)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.
Are you sure Mrs Fenn ever said she reported hearing Madeline crying?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481485/Madeleines-mother-quizzed-Portuguese-police.htmlLast night the McCanns got a boost when the police case appeared to be undermined by a pensioner who is potentially a key witness.
Pamela Fenn, 81, lives above the apartment where Madeleine disappeared and is reported to have told police she heard Madeleine screaming below.
But yesterday she broke her silence to say it was "absolute rubbish" she had made any such claims to police. Mrs Fenn said: "I didn't even know that family was in there."
There is a video of her point-blank refuting that she ever said any such thing.
Oh that's right, I'm on ignore, so it will go right over your head, along with pretty much everything else.0 -
Something ElseExcept 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.
Why shouldn’t they get dogs abuse as you call it for neglect. I do care if they did or did not check on their children as we know what their neglect allowed to happen. It’s unforgivable what they did.0 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)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.
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.0 -
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)You just want to discuss the McCanns. It's really restricting this thread.
Maybe a new one should be set up for those who just want to discuss the McCanns didn't do it line and then this can be left for neutral observers who want to discuss all theories. Just a thought.
I'll ask again, which theories do you wish me to discuss that I haven't discussed before? You'll have to clarify which subject I haven't discussed exactly, as it's a really long thread and there's been numerous theories in which I have partaken in discussions about.
If you have a particular one I haven't covered, by all means, hit me with it, my Swiss friend! 0 -
Advertisement
-
She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)Immortal Starlight wrote: »Why shouldn’t they get dogs abuse as you call it for neglect. I do care if they did or did not check on their children as we know what their neglect allowed to happen. It’s unforgivable what they did.
You are being deliberately argumentative, where did I say that they shouldn’t get dogs abuse?
The irony of people trying to say they covered it up and got away with it while they also acknowledge that they have been abused, harassed and condemned by both the public and the press for over 13 years isn’t lost on me. They got away with nothing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement