Madeleine McCann

pc7 · 17-05-2019 8:33am

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

You can spoiler his conclusion that way posters can choose to view it or not if that helps.

wmpdd3 · 29-05-2019 1:08pm

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

I've just finished the Maddie podcast.

I found it extensive and balanced, similar to Richard Hall but only in depth in certain subjects.

The main part I take away from it is, until the dna notes are examined again, there will be no answer.

I always found that part the most fudged and unclear in other documentaries, but it was explained fully here.

Mark's conclusion is pretty much the same as Richard Hall's but with a slightly different time line.

Accident, body hidden.

Both still highlight David Payne as a person to be examined further.

OwlsZat · 29-05-2019 1:32pm

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

wmpdd3 wrote: »

I've just finished the Maddie podcast.

I found it extensive and balanced, similar to Richard Hall but only in depth in certain subjects.

The main part I take away from it is, until the dna notes are examined again, there will be no answer.

I always found that part the most fudged and unclear in other documentaries, but it was explained fully here.

Mark's conclusion is pretty much the same as Richard Hall's but with a slightly different time line.

Accident, body hidden.

Both still highlight David Payne as a person to be examined further.

There is no plausible reason not to fully review the DNA evidence...

Agree fully the podcast was excellent. The media should be continuing to put the pressure on.

Ann22 · 02-06-2019 7:54am

Something Else

Is the podcast just called "Maddie" with a photo of her face with a red background?

OwlsZat · 02-06-2019 11:53am

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

Ann22 wrote: »

Is the podcast just called "Maddie" with a photo of her face with a red background?

It is indeed.

je551e · 03-06-2019 8:00pm

Something Else

Just finished the Podcast and like above comments it’s very good . the DNA being reanalysed is the only way to go now but the resistance to this only adds more questions.

After listening to this and watching the Netflix documentary it has opened my eyes to the fact we live in a world that inhabits some amount of monsters!

OwlsZat · 04-06-2019 12:18pm

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

je551e wrote: »

Just finished the Podcast and like above comments it’s very good . the DNA being reanalysed is the only way to go now but the resistance to this only adds more questions.

After listening to this and watching the Netflix documentary it has opened my eyes to the fact we live in a world that inhabits some amount of monsters!

There isn't a single good reason not to do the cutting edge DNA sample review. I can understand why Scotland yard wouldn't to oust the McCanns but why not the PJ?

Feels like there was a huge international relations effort in this. One where we will never be privy to the details.

cnocbui · 04-06-2019 12:57pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

There isn't a single good reason not to do the cutting edge DNA sample review. I can understand why Scotland yard wouldn't to oust the McCanns but why not the PJ?

Feels like there was a huge international relations effort in this. One where we will never be privy to the details.

There might be a very good reason, in that the material may no longer exist as it was used up in the original test.

I remember from the Meredith Kercher murder investigation in Italy that a minute sample of blood was obtained from a knife and that it couldn't be retested because it was consumed in the test.

OwlsZat · 04-06-2019 1:56pm

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

cnocbui wrote: »

There might be a very good reason, in that the material may no longer exist as it was used up in the original test.

I remember from the Meredith Kercher murder investigation in Italy that a minute sample of blood was obtained from a knife and that it couldn't be retested because it was consumed in the test.

The sample being used up isn't an issue here. For the analysis the lab needs the DNA profiles for all involved and the results of the original analysis.

It's a mathematical / probability based analysis that doesn't actually repeat analyzing the sample itself.

Ann22 · 07-06-2019 5:58pm

Something Else

Listened to the Podcast. It was riveting...I was walking about like a zombie with my headphones on and my mouth agape.
The article in the Sun with the report on the failure of the so called up to date DNA testing was I strongly suspect put in there by Clarence Mitchell in retaliation to the Podcast. Wtf were they involved in that there are so many important people protecting them.
Waiting to hear about the evil German scapegoat!

nc6000 · 07-06-2019 7:02pm

The parents did it

Which podcast have people been listening to?

pc7 · 07-06-2019 7:05pm

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

Someone posted one here called Maddie, very well done

MonkieSocks · 03-12-2019 10:03pm

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

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10455887/madeleine-mccann-chief-suspect-not-martin-ney/

Technophobe · 04-12-2019 3:05pm

MonkieSocks wrote: »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10455887/madeleine-mccann-chief-suspect-not-martin-ney/

blocked here..what does it say?

MonkieSocks · 04-12-2019 6:45pm

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

Technophobe wrote: »

blocked here..what does it say?

Here

FORMER Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral has revealed a German paedophile suspected over Madeleine McCann’s disappearance is not Martin Ney.

The ex-cop sparked speculation Ney was the prime suspect after saying in an interview earlier this year investigators were focusing on a German paedophile in prison.

Madeleine disappeared days before her fourth birthday in May 2007 after parents Kate and Gerry left their children in their apartment in Praia da Luz.

Amaral was the officer initially in charge of the investigation and made the McCann's "arguidos" - or official suspects - before he was sacked from the case.

In his interview with an Australian podcast, he mentioned the possibility of a German paedophile being responsible - but he didn’t mention 49-year-old Hamburg-born child strangler Ney by name.

Instead he described the suspect only as someone who had been ruled out of the investigation into the missing British youngster in 2008 but later jailed in his home country.

Now Amaral, the original lead investigator in the case, has now said the suspect isn’t Ney, who was jailed for life in 2012 for abducting and murdering three children, and sexually abusing dozens more.

When he was shown a photo of him on Spanish TV, Amaral responded: “It can’t be him.”

“A paedophile who is German and serving life for killing children has been spoken about,” he told a show about missing adults and children.

“What I know is that the suspect is not him, it’s another man. He’s also in prison in Germany. He’s also a paedophile.”

In a bizarre twist, Amaral said the suspect looks similar to Madeleine’s dad Gerry before saying that Ney bears no resemblance to him.

The slur comes after years of legal wrangling between the former police chief and the missing youngster’s parents over his book ‘The Truth of the Lie.’

He claims in the controversial 2008 book that Gerry and Kate McCann had covered up their daughter’s accidental death in their holiday apartment.

The McCanns have made a last-ditch attempt to the European Court of Human Rights after losing a libel fight against Mr Amaral in Portugal.

Last year Amaral claimed MI5 spies had helped to cover up Madeleine’s death and disappearance.

He said British secret agents “for sure had an involvement” in an Australian documentary which aired in April 2018.

The McCanns have repeatedly said the fake accusations against them have harmed the search for Madeleine.

chases0102 · 23-01-2020 6:08pm

Something Else

Just listened to the 'Maddy' Podcast, after a recommendation from a friend. Very good.

What's the best documentary out there on this case? I understand the Netflix one is very poor, and not worth watching.

23-01-2020 6:18pm

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

chases0102 wrote: »

Just listened to the 'Maddy' Podcast, after a recommendation from a friend. Very good.

What's the best documentary out there on this case? I understand the Netflix one is very poor, and not worth watching.

I thought the Netflix one was quite good. Only one way to find out.

chases0102 · 23-01-2020 6:19pm

Something Else

Cheers!

OwlsZat · 23-01-2020 8:12pm

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

I wonder when the British cops will allow the Dr to assist with analysing the DNA evidence. It will be a cold day in hell...

CPTM · 23-01-2020 8:57pm

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

I found the Netflix one to be too detailed and long tbh, containing loads of things I found to be irrelevant. There was a strange guy trying to help too much who became a suspect. They went into a lot of detail with him, and his colleagues, and when they started giving details of his colleague's family it was just overkill.

23-01-2020 11:26pm

Something Else

I got very bored of the Netflix documentary really quickly. There really isn’t any good documentary out there for this case. Surprising considering it’s such a huge case.

The McCanns are fond of suing though so maybe that’s why.

splinter65 · 24-01-2020 8:37am

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

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I got very bored of the Netflix documentary really quickly. There really isn’t any good documentary out there for this case. Surprising considering it’s such a huge case.

The McCanns are fond of suing though so maybe that’s why.

The McCanns aren’t going to let anyone allege or imply that they harmed their daughter. Would you?

OwlsZat · 24-01-2020 12:31pm

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

splinter65 wrote: »

The McCanns aren’t going to let anyone allege or imply that they harmed their daughter. Would you?

That's where the McCanns win out. Convincing everyone that they aren't murderers instead are just like you and me.

If your daughter was missing would you or wouldn't you answer detailed questioning. They aren't like you or me.

SusieBlue · 24-01-2020 12:55pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

That's where the McCanns win out. Convincing everyone that they aren't murderers instead are just like you and me.

If your daughter was missing would you or wouldn't you answer detailed questioning. They aren't like you or me.

That's quite dishonest and a big misrepresentation on your part.
She answered all of their questions, several times over, prior to being made an arguido. Which I'm quite sure you're aware of.

I wouldn't cooperate with a police force that were trying to implicate and blame me for my daughter going missing instead of looking for her either.
Just because that's what you think you'd do (despite never actually being in the situation), doesn't make it the right thing to do, or the only thing to do.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 1:19pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

That's where the McCanns win out. Convincing everyone that they aren't murderers instead are just like you and me.

If your daughter was missing would you or wouldn't you answer detailed questioning. They aren't like you or me.

You have paid a top gun lawyer to represent you. He tells you not to answer their questions. You would of course, being 'normal', ignore the advice of the lawyer who knows how things work in that foreign country and just go for it.

If your idea of normal is insanity, that is.

You really should read up on the 'police' - a term I have to bite my tongue to get out. Convictions for perjury, clear evidence of beating and torturing female suspects extensively, getting let off that by a judge ruling a technicality applies. Late night assaults with iron bars, restraining orders. Full-on leaking of subjudice details and private correspondence to the press.

You literally couldn't make up that 5hit if you were a novelist writing about a corrupt small town police force in a South America, several thousand kilometers from the big smoke, because it would be too unbelievable.

OwlsZat · 24-01-2020 1:24pm

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

cnocbui wrote: »

You have paid a top gun lawyer to represent you. He tells you not to answer their questions. You would of course, being 'normal', ignore the advice of the lawyer who knows how things work in that foreign country and just go for it.

If your idea of normal is insanity, that is.

You really should read up on the 'police' - a term I have to bite my tongue to get out. Convictions for perjury, clear evidence of beating and torturing female suspects extensively, getting let off that by a judge ruling a technicality applies. Late night assaults with iron bars, restraining orders. Full-on leaking of subjudice details and private correspondence to the press.

You literally couldn't make up that 5hit if you were a novelist writing about a corrupt small town police force in a South America, several thousand kilometers from the big smoke, because it would be too unbelievable.

A lawyer will only advice a client to answer "no comment" if there is a risk of implicating themselves in the crime. Why exactly do you think the lawyer was worried their client would implicate themselves?

If my child was abducted and I was made a suspect I would answer every single question to the Nth degree. So that my version of events could be corroborated by other evidence and I could be exonerated fully of the crime.

I'm not aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL questions that were put to them. Perhaps you can enlighten me with other examples.

SusieBlue · 24-01-2020 1:33pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

A lawyer will only advice a client to answer "no comment" if there is a risk of implicating themselves in the crime. Why exactly do you think the lawyer was worried their client would implicate themselves?

If my child was abducted and I was made a suspect I would answer every single question to the Nth degree. So that my version of events could be corroborated by other evidence and I could be exonerated fully of the crime.

I'm not aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL questions that were put to them. Perhaps you can enlighten me with other examples.

You are being dishonest again.
She answered all the questions, several times over. Then after being made arguido, they asked the exact same questions again, in an affort to implicate her.
They already had all her answers, because she had already answered the questions.
She would have only been repeating herself and wasting valuable time. All they had to do was consult their notes of the prior interviews if they were that desperate to know.

But there is absolutely no point in debating this if you continue to misrepresent what happened because none of what you have said alludes to her/their guilt.

splinter65 · 24-01-2020 3:01pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

That's where the McCanns win out. Convincing everyone that they aren't murderers instead are just like you and me.

If your daughter was missing would you or wouldn't you answer detailed questioning. They aren't like you or me.

If my solicitor told me that the questioning was not in an effort to discover what had happened to my child but was instead an exercise in getting me to incriminate myself then, no, I wouldn’t answer.
And neither would you.

splinter65 · 24-01-2020 3:06pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

A lawyer will only advice a client to answer "no comment" if there is a risk of implicating themselves in the crime. Why exactly do you think the lawyer was worried their client would implicate themselves?

If my child was abducted and I was made a suspect I would answer every single question to the Nth degree. So that my version of events could be corroborated by other evidence and I could be exonerated fully of the crime.

I'm not aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL questions that were put to them. Perhaps you can enlighten me with other examples.

You have absolutely no idea between here and high heaven what you would do if your child was missing. Absolutely none. It’s impossible to project yourself into that situation.
You are fooling yourself to a ridiculous level if you imagine that you can. Why are you being so dishonest about this?

OwlsZat · 24-01-2020 3:13pm

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

SusieBlue wrote: »

You are being dishonest again.
She answered all the questions, several times over. Then after being made arguido, they asked the exact same questions again, in an affort to implicate her.
They already had all her answers, because she had already answered the questions.
She would have only been repeating herself and wasting valuable time. All they had to do was consult their notes of the prior interviews if they were that desperate to know.

But there is absolutely no point in debating this if you continue to misrepresent what happened because none of what you have said alludes to her/their guilt.

You are being dishonest SusieBlue. You have been many times and it's a deceitful way to misrepresent facts.

Can you answer the question instead of being deceptive? I'll repeat it so its clear. Are you aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL the questions that were put to them on the record while under suspicion of a crime?

OwlsZat · 24-01-2020 3:18pm

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

splinter65 wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea between here and high heaven what you would do if your child was missing. Absolutely none. It’s impossible to project yourself into that situation.
You are fooling yourself to a ridiculous level if you imagine that you can. Why are you being so dishonest about this?

With the greatest level of respect your talking absolute cobblelock. If I was in Kate's position and I was innocent I would have answered every question truthfully and exonerated myself. Trying to make out like that's not my honest position is deceitful of you. Because quite frankly you have zero idea how I would react in that position and making out otherwise is barefaced lying.

The only person who's position you can represent is your own. If you believe you would operate similarly under the same duress then that's your prerogative. Personally, I disagree with the strategy. I believe it's an admission of guilt. If you have nothing to hide. Don't hide it. That's my opinion and I'm free to have it. Making out like I'm lying, again will have you reported for trolling.

Hrududu · 24-01-2020 3:27pm

Something Else

Isn’t this a genuine tactic of investigations though? You ask the same questions over and over again to see if the story or details change.

SusieBlue · 24-01-2020 3:29pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

You are being dishonest SusieBlue. You have been many times and it's a deceitful way to misrepresent facts.

Can you answer the question instead of being deceptive? I'll repeat it so its clear. Are you aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL the questions that were put to them on the record while under suspicion of a crime?

I'm not being deceptive.
You specifically said she refused to answer any questions and that is complete fabrication on your part.
She had already answered them, so there were clearly no honourable intentions by them asking again.
They asked again in an effort to implicate her, not cause they were urgently trying to garner crucial information relevant to finding her daughter. Their sole focus was on pinning it on the McCanns at that point, the search operation was all but scaled down.

So I will repeat myself, because you aren't comprehending it: They already had all the answers.

Now if you would choose to ignore professional legal advice and answer despite this, that's your prerogative. I mean, I think that would be pretty stupid, but it would be your call.
But that doesn't mean that its the RIGHT thing or the ONLY thing to do, and it certainly doesn't allude to her guilt.

So until you acknowledge that fact, I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you about other cases, because all you're doing is moving the goalposts.

SusieBlue · 24-01-2020 3:35pm

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

Hrududu wrote: »

Isn’t this a genuine tactic of investigations though? You ask the same questions over and over again to see if the story or details change.

Yeah, she had been questioned for several days, same questions, for 8-12 hours at a time. When they were made arguidos and it was clear the tone of the investigation had changed, their legal representative advised them not to engage futher.
So when questioned again, Kate replied "no comment" to all the questions she had previously answered.

Some here are implying that because of this Kate wasn't cooperating with the investigation, that she wasn't passing on vital information & clues, and that she wasn't interested in finding her child.
She had already answered the questions so its complete and total hyperbole.

The reality is that Kate refused to engage with an organisation she didn't trust, who she knew were trying to blame her for her childs disappearance, which I personally think is quite understandable.

OwlsZat · 24-01-2020 3:46pm

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

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not being deceptive.
You specifically said she refused to answer any questions and that is complete fabrication on your part. She had already answered them, so there were clearly no honorable intentions by them asking again.

That's a ludicrous notion. if you are part of an investigation expect to get asked the same questions on repeat. People who deceive will contradict themselves. People who are answering truthfully will not.

Finding out if someone is answering truthfully or not is exceptionally honorable behavior. As already pointed out its very basic interrogation. Pretending to be offended by being asked again and refusing to co-operate is a simple smokescreen. There is no room for empathy in police work.

SusieBlue · 24-01-2020 4:12pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

That's a ludicrous notion. if you are part of an investigation expect to get asked the same questions on repeat. People who deceive will contradict themselves. People who are answering truthfully will not.

Finding out if someone is answering truthfully or not is exceptionally honorable behavior. As already pointed out its very basic interrogation. Pretending to be offended by being asked again and refusing to co-operate is a simple smokescreen. There is no room for empathy in police work.

So you admit that she had answered all the questions before, and that you were misrepresenting the situation when you said that she had refused to answer any and all questions put to her?

Because that's what you said and now you appear to be going back on it, and arguing about the hows and the why's. That's not what what was under dispute so you are completely shifting the goalpoasts...Again.

splinter65 · 24-01-2020 4:52pm

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

With the greatest level of respect your talking absolute cobblelock. If I was in Kate's position and I was innocent I would have answered every question truthfully and exonerated myself. Trying to make out like that's not my honest position is deceitful of you. Because quite frankly you have zero idea how I would react in that position and making out otherwise is barefaced lying.

The only person who's position you can represent is your own. If you believe you would operate similarly under the same duress then that's your prerogative. Personally, I disagree with the strategy. I believe it's an admission of guilt. If you have nothing to hide. Don't hide it. That's my opinion and I'm free to have it. Making out like I'm lying, again will have you reported for trolling.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you’d do if you were in “Kate's position” how could you possibly have? Even if you could imagine then who are you to say that what you’d do is the “normal” or “right” thing to do? Who appointed you the arbiter of correct behaviour?
The hypocrisy in this post is startling. But then I find hypocrisy in most of the ghouls who persist, nearly 12 years later, with their campaign of insane illogical unfounded hostility against the McCann family.
Look at what you’re saying. You’ve already declared that you would ignore the advice of your solicitor and any other advisers you had hired and answer the questions that you’ve already answered (twice) without any suspicion that there was an agenda against you (even though it’s now blatantly clear that that’s what’s happening) but now your saying in the same breath “ quite frankly you have zero idea how I would react in that position and making out otherwise is barefaced lying”.
So which is it?

weldoninhio · 24-01-2020 6:47pm

Something Else

splinter65 wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea between here and high heaven what you would do if your child was missing. Absolutely none. It’s impossible to project yourself into that situation.
You are fooling yourself to a ridiculous level if you imagine that you can. Why are you being so dishonest about this?

One thing I absolutely do know I wouldn’t do if one of my children was missing. And that’s let the other two out of my sight in Portugal. I wouldn’t be flying out to Rome etc on a jolly without them.

TheW1zard · 24-01-2020 6:49pm

Accident happened, parents hid body

Whats the story with the cadaver dogs smelling a body in their rental - dodge

SusieBlue · 24-01-2020 7:19pm

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

TheW1zard wrote: »

Whats the story with the cadaver dogs smelling a body in their rental - dodge

They rented that car 3 weeks after she went missing. In order for the cadavar to be accurate, they would have had to hide her body for 3 weeks under the nose of the police and the worlds media and then dispose of said body without getting caught, in an unfamiliar location with no access to google maps.

If you think that’s something that could plausibly have occurred then yeah, I agree it looks pretty dodge.

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 7:24pm

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

TheW1zard wrote: »

Whats the story with the cadaver dogs smelling a body in their rental - dodge

The same story as with the multiple sniffer and SAR dogs the Portuguese had running through the resort, village and countryside, the day/s after Madeleine went missing - they didn't find anything.

retro:electro · 24-01-2020 7:26pm

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

TheW1zard wrote: »

Whats the story with the cadaver dogs smelling a body in their rental - dodge

Here’s a tip. Start at page one of the thread and go from there.

nc6000 · 24-01-2020 9:58pm

The parents did it

SusieBlue wrote: »

They rented that car 3 weeks after she went missing. In order for the cadavar to be accurate, they would have had to hide her body for 3 weeks under the nose of the police and the worlds media and then dispose of said body without getting caught, in an unfamiliar location with no access to google maps.

Gerry's friends in the Illuminati contacted the UK Government and got Google to give him advance access to Google Maps in return for a deal on their London HQ.

I thought everyone knew that.

TheW1zard · 24-01-2020 11:11pm

Accident happened, parents hid body

retro:electro wrote: »

Here’s a tip. Start at page one of the thread and go from there.

Yeah no thanks.
The dogs indicated a dead body was in the car thats a fact is it not

cnocbui · 24-01-2020 11:19pm

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

TheW1zard wrote: »

Yeah no thanks.
The dogs indicated a dead body was in the car thats a fact is it not

No it's not. The dogs barked, no one knows why.

TheW1zard · 24-01-2020 11:32pm

Accident happened, parents hid body

cnocbui wrote: »

No it's not. The dogs barked, no one knows why.

The highly trained cadaver dogs barked while doing a search..

sparrowcar · 24-01-2020 11:38pm

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

TheW1zard wrote: »

Yeah no thanks.
The dogs indicated a dead body was in the car thats a fact is it not

Let me guess, you just watched the netflix documentary...
Read the thread, it will educate you.

SusieBlue · 24-01-2020 11:38pm

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

TheW1zard wrote: »

The highly trained cadaver dogs barked while doing a search..

They didnt hire the car until 3 weeks after she disappeared. How do you propose they hid the body for 3 weeks and subsequently disposed of it, with the police breathing down their neck and every news station in the world camped outside their apartment, following their every move?

TheW1zard · 24-01-2020 11:51pm

Accident happened, parents hid body

sparrowcar wrote: »

Let me guess, you just watched the netflix documentary...
Read the thread, it will educate you.

Havent watched it. This stuff has been out there for years

TheW1zard · 24-01-2020 11:55pm

Accident happened, parents hid body

SusieBlue wrote: »

They didnt hire the car until 3 weeks after she disappeared. How do you propose they hid the body for 3 weeks and subsequently disposed of it, with the police breathing down their neck and every news station in the world camped outside their apartment, following their every move?

Didnt their mobile ping off various towers while travelling around in the rental. What are you doing taking excursions 3 weeks after your kids gone missing.
Im not new to the topic, nor am i trolling a thread!
So many dodgy things about the case!

Madeleine McCann

Comments