Madeleine McCann

Calltocall wrote: »

And only the McCann apartment? So this gate was solely for 5A?

Yes . A path runs along beside that gate and that leads to the other apartments on that row . But the steps from 5a lead directly to that white gate and on the the public path

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If you have watched it what is his conclusion?

He thinks she (Madeleine) was beinging abused by Kate. If you Google his name with Madeleine McCann. The video is long but it adds another layer of thought.

drkpower wrote: »

Tearing strips off each other?They had a different recollection as to what side of the road Gerry was standing on. That is of no significance whatsoever.

drkpower wrote: »

Not aimed at you; I think someone else made that comment; just quoted you as you had helpfully linked to the video.

Yeah I reckon I know who you are aiming that at. If you actually read what is written it would help. Btw think of it whatever you want. No skin off anyones nose eitherway

What was said was,"Gerry ended up practically tearing a strip out of Jane". What was referred to happens in the video after Jane says to Gerry

If you'd have been looking at me, coz I would have said something, coz Kate had been moaning that you'd been gone a long time watching the football

An uncut clip shows Gerry cutting her off and marching off across the road and then giving that he remembers it completely differently.

Interestingly that unedited clip of that video which showed Gerry and Jane arguing more about this directly was followed by Jane in tears which is also included and seen further on in the video linked. I'll see if I can find the uncut one.

What I find interesting is the previously unmentioned discussion about Gerrys absence and football.

Again this is what Jane says to Gerry as transcribed from the video

If you'd have been looking at me, coz I would have said something, coz Kate had been moaning that you'd been gone a long time watching the football

The only other reference about this comes from Jane's very long Rogatory (second) Police interview. Thus is an abstract with the relevant bit highlighted.

4078    “So there is no rush, just in your own time”.

Reply    “Yeah.  Erm, so, yeah, I think everybody, everybody arrived about nine o’clock.  I think we ordered fairly, as soon as Dave and Fi arrived we sort of like ordered almost straight away I think.  And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them.  So he, yeah, he, he went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’, so he was gone a bit longer than normal

.Erm, and then I think we thought ‘Oh well the starters are going to appear any minute’.  So Russ had sort of come down about quarter to.  And I think at this point, I don’t know whether I knew that Matt had been and listened or what, so I remember saying to Russ ‘Shall I got and check’ and I remember at that time thinking ‘Oh can I persuade Russ to go and check so I don’t have to’.  But, no, so, you know, I’ll go and check at that point. So, timing wise, I mean, I think it was sort of five past, ten past, ten past nine, around, around that sort of time”.
...
4078    “From what I know from reading statements, Gerry was still absent?”

Reply    “He wasn’t there at that point, no, no.  So, erm, then I walked, so I just walked out the, erm, the Ocean Club bit and walked, sort of walked up the road.  And then Gerry was there, he was talking to Jez WILKINS in the road, well they were sort of, as I went by.  So I think I thought then ‘Oh that’s why Jez’, not Jez, ‘That’s why Gerry has been, you know, that’s why he’s longer than we thought’”

4078    “I know you are uncertain because you think Gerry’s recollection is different, but as far as you can remember”.

Reply    “Well I think one of them was in the road and I think, I thought it was Jez in the road because he had the pram.  And I don’t know which, I can’t remember which way he was facing.  No, I mean, I think I remember in my statement I did say, but I can’t remember now which way he was facing.  And I thought Gerry was almost like on the edge of the pavement or just, just in the road sort of, but definitely sort of by that, sort of more by this alleyway.  I don’t think they were by the apartment gate, I thought they were sort of a bit further down, down the road than that”.

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

I think it was Necros? point that Gerry never bothered checking the children looks increasingly likley imo. Interstingly Gerry doesn't reply to Jane's statement about been gone longer than expected in that video at all.

The sniffer dog stuff is interesting. It’s not as if they have any preconceived notions or can be bought etc.

Are there any worthwhile articles, theories etc regarding the dogs to check out?

Thanks.

Does anyone know was there ever a sketch released of the individual carol tranmer saw on the day of the disappearance? I read her statement and it’s a detailed enough description but I can’t understand why they didn’t try get a sketch out there of this man like there are a lot of sketches of different people but given this was an individual seen on the day of the disappearance and at the mccann apartment kind of a no brainer one would have a sketch drawn up.

Phoebas wrote: »

It precisely does take away from the dog alerting on a dead body.

The dog alerted, samples were taken and tested. No forensic evidence was found. That is precisely indicative of the dog not alerting correctly.

The fact that the dog alerting didn't result in conclusive DNA evidence doesn't prove that the dogs weren't alerting correctly. The DNA evidence was compatible with Madeleine's DNA, but could have come from another close relative. We don't know for sure one way or the other.

In terms of the cadaver dog in particular, if it is cadaver scent that sparks the dog to bark, is it not possible that the scent could linger even after cleansing away of physical DNA? I don't think humans have fully pinned down the exact chemical components that comprise the cadaver scent dogs get alerted to, so it is unsurprising that it can't be fully corroborated as scientists don't know exactly what they're looking for.

Phoebas wrote: »

Ameral has said a lot of bizarre things about this case, including various allegations of tampering and cover up.

He is a disgraced, convicted crooked cop whose word cannot be relied on alone.

Our own police force isn't exactly beyond reproach either.

cnocbui wrote: »

The spin you put on things is ludicrous.

The lies and deception are in your own mind and are your lurid and one-eyed take on things. The were legally entitled to leave - the Portuguese authorities could have easily prevented them - so using the term 'flee' is just your typically emotive spin. Among many other good reasons to leave, their lease was up.

Why, the only choice they had was to stay in the same apartment or leave the country entirely?

cnocbui wrote: »

You can't prove a negative.

Yes you can.

cnocbui wrote: »

Your lack of ability to comprehend what you read, is profound. I draw your attention to my use of the word 'or'.

Your imagined court performance is risible as it would never happen because no witness would submit such a thing as evidence in the first place, because it's not evidence, by definition, and even if they were to try it the defense lawyer would have to be asleep not to raise an objection.

Have you ever seen the phrase 'inadmissible as evidence'? Something referred to as such is not 'evidence' that couldn't be submitted, it's something that doesn't qualify as evidence, therefore it can't be submitted as such. No biological material found in the McCann case could ever be submitted to a court as 'evidence' because it isn't.

You seem to know a lot about the criminal justice system. You are aware, I presume, that Portugal, where any trial would take place, has a civil law system rather than the common law system that exists in the UK and Ireland. In civil law countries trials tend to be more inquisitorial in nature with a lot of power resting on what the Judge thinks is or is not admissible as evidence in the circumstances. Do you have qualifications in Portuguese law? How can you predict with such seeming confidence what a Judge would or would not allow as evidence if this were to come to trial?

MonkieSocks wrote: »

The Bag in the top left photo

Checked by Martin Grimes Dogs...no signal given.

No Blood or bodily fluids found by forensic people




There is a list of the luggage they brought with them and photos on this site.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/sitemap.htm


2 Luggage Bags checked in Airport England.


3 carry on bags seen in video of them where Madeline tripped getting on the plane.



.

Isn't there a question mark over a certain tennis bag? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573575/Gerry-McCanns-tennis-bag-is-focus-of-inquiry.html

Creol1 wrote: »

...

Isn't there a question mark over a certain tennis bag? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573575/Gerry-McCanns-tennis-bag-is-focus-of-inquiry.html

From that article

They came back from holiday with everything except of course, tragically, Madeleine."

The issue of a blue tennis bag has been speculated on. The statement above presumes that this sports bag (if it existed), was a) not transported over stuffed in a suitcase etc

Or b) was borrowed from the TW resort where the various guest all detailed that rackets, sporting equipment etc was freely available for the use of the guests.

It was said that the bag seen in the wardrobe photographs and which went missing was not the same as the suitcases carried over by the McCanns. The existence of such a bag was denied by them.

I believe the issue of a large sports bag has been flagged as relevant as it could have been used to carry / hide the body of a child. Potentially even an abductor could have used it for this purpose if they had doped the child and wished to leave unnoticed ....

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There was and a GP recognised the likeness to himself and came forward. He had collected his child form the night crèche. Jane only got a fleeting look and her description was accepted by many. Martin Smith got a fleeting look and identifed GMcC but according to many here eye witnesses are unreliable. Go figure.

I think we’re talking about different sightings here, Tranmer was the niece of a woman who lived above the mccans and gave a statement to police in england regarding a man acting suspiciously at the gate to mccanns apartment on the day of the disappearance, from reading a bit further there’s a record of her statement and interestingly she mentions that she gave an efit in a previous statement
however that efit has never been released, doesn’t make sense they didn’t release that,amazing, they spent millions on investigators and none of them dug into that to find the efit.

From 2nd August 2007


OBJECTS FOR EXAMINATION by Portuguese Police


Two main baggage identification tags 340816 and 340817

With Airport tags dated 28 April 2007, date of departure in England

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Apologies I was talking about Jane Tanner and Martin Smith.

No worries, there’s a fair few sightings that night it’s all quite confusing, but I find surprising to say the least that they threw around so many e fits of different people yet didn’t thoroughly follow this one up and get it out there, particularly having spent millions it wouldn’t have been hard to do, there’s so many different angles and some just weren’t explored at all, like you should start at the apartment and work back from there, this guy was spotted on the day approx 4.30/5 coming from the gate to mccans apartment and was acting suspiciously, may have been nothing but astounded they didn’t folow that up.

Lady Poepoe wrote: »

Has anyone seen the videos of Peter Hyatt assessment of one of the McCanns interview?

I`ve watched a number of Hyatt videos on different cases. One regular thing he refers to is the language used by people who suffered from childhood sexual abuse. So for example someone says "I went into the bedroom". This is what we would expect someone to say to describe how they entered a bedroom. However if someone says "I opened the door, turned on the light and went into the bedroom". This is a red flag for that person having suffered from childhood sexual abuse. The opening of a door late at night was part of a childhood trauma and becomes a significant event in that individuals life and migrates into the everyday language. The other thing he highlights for historic sexual abuse is an obsession with hygiene and cleanliness.

He says that he believes that Kate was a victim of sexual abuse. She focuses a lot on doors being open and on the night of the disappearance she didn`t just put the kids to bed but she says bathed them, brushed their teeth and put them to bed. He also says that he was unaware of the Gaspar testimony. But I also have some problems with some of his conclusions. Some of the McCann interviews he focused on were given when they knew they were prime suspects and so they were on the defensive. I would also suggest that even if they are innocent, we should still expect to find signs of guilt in their so called "embedded confessions" because although innocent they would carry a lot of guilt about how they abandoned their kids and would blame themselves for any abduction.

Hyatt didn`t deal with anyone except the McCanns. But from watching his videos, some of the testimony of the Paynes really bugs me. David Payne saw the kids that evening around 6-30 and his wife Fiona testified that he told her they looked "angelic and clean". If I was looking to describe someone elses kids, angelic might come into my head, but not clean. That just sounds weird to me.

The other thing about Kate is that I don`t think she has the demeanor of someone who committed some terrible crime. Her refusal to answer police questions is problematic but if you were really innocent but convinced that the Portugese police were determined to get you no matter what, you might decide not to give them any more to hit you with. Would you really want to meet the pope if you had faith but committed a terrible crime? In more recent times she has been reaching out to other mothers of missing kids. So for me this whole case is a barrel of contradictions. Gerry on the other hand looks like he wishes it would all just go away.

In interview Kate states twice they "will always have hope". Am I wrong to look at this and think she's being too definite with the word always. It's as if she knows the child will never be found and has reserved herself to using her hope persona for the rest of her days.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The article you linked is from 2002 I'm guessing they have done some work in the last 17 years to counteract this.

Oh you think they got everyone involved in these obvious gangs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Pia_child_sexual_abuse_scandal

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The article you linked is from 2002 I'm guessing they have done some work in the last 17 years to counteract this.

In a recent article about this case on the Sunday Independent DCI Sutton (ex Scotland Yard) said that:

while theories about child trafficking and targeted abduction might might make for spine-tingling drama, they are always amongst the least likely hypotheses with these cases. I understand that the notion that there are these predatory groups who are stealing children is something that is attractive in selling newspapers and TV programmes, but I'm not sure in the real world how common an occurrence that is

I think he neatly sums up one of the main reason apart from any evidence of abduction by a stranger as to why such a scenario is not necessarily the correct explanation for what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Whilst the bogey man may exist in all our imaginations and many of us were told as children that he would come and get us - happily this is still a fairly rare occurrence in real life. The fact remains that more children are harmed by people known to them than any random stranger.