Author Topic: The case of Madeleine McCann  (Read 305676 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8564
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5340 on: July 30, 2020, 02:11:PM »
Maybe they'll find a rack of Riesling.

"An eyewitness observing the forensic search in Hanover said: “The sniffer dogs were barking quite a lot.”"

Uh Oh. You know what sniffer dogs barking means!  ::)

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5341 on: July 31, 2020, 12:59:AM »
I address what follows to honest people.

As I have recently been taking a closer re-look at the Bamber case, one thing that has become apparent is that the scratch marks could not have been made on the aga surround with the silencer.  It is "materially impossible".  I am confident in saying that.

If Ann Eaton was in front of me now, my first question to her would be: "How did those scratch marks get on the aga surround?"

Let us take the aga affair as our acid test.  That is our benchmark for material impossibility: something that can't have happened, a hypothesis that is conclusively falsified.

When Goncalo Amaral of the Polícia Judiciária tells us that abduction is a "material impossibility", we know he is wrong.  If we're honest people, we know this.

This means that in a criminal trial of the McCanns, in order for the trial to be fair, a jury would have to be made aware that the abduction theory is, contrary to what the police officially claim, in fact a consideration that is very firmly on the table. 

Once you admit that abduction is possible or not "materially impossible" (whichever way you prefer to put it), this changes the whole tenor of the discussion because you have to allow that abduction could have occurred, and if you want to maintain that the parents are responsible rather than an outside agent, then you have to come up with something very compelling that leaves abduction only as a residual possibility: preferably evidence in the form of a body found in proximity to the apartment itself or somewhere that the parents have been or had access to.

I don't pretend I know a great deal about this case, but, like it or not, the plain reality of it is that there was means and opportunity for somebody to learn of the social group's routines, then go in to that apartment and remove Madeleine without the parents knowing.  The patio door was unlocked and not in the parents' line of sight, nor was the walkway approach to the apartment from the main street available for the parents to see.  Whether it was wise for the parents to put themselves in that position is beside the point.  They did, and that they did proves nothing as to the matter before us.  Moreover, this was their routine, it was known by people at the hotel, and crucially, it cannot be alleged that the McCanns suddenly adopted this routine as a means of deflecting attention from an incident in the apartment.

The alternative to all this is that we take the view that Madeleine died in the apartment, probably in an accident or similar, and the parents have hidden the body. Let's consider this.

We would need to first consider why the parents would not alert the holiday complex and the authorities, or the friends that they are holidaying with.  Well, they're doctors, you say.  Perhaps as medical doctors they would more quickly realise the gravity of the situation and this equipped them to make a decision, whereas non-medics would instinctively seek outside help; nevertheless, these people would have to calmly sit down and plan the disposal of their daughter's body in an unfamiliar area of a foreign country, and be confident that they could do so within a very narrow time window of a few hours in the afternoon. While this is going on, they must also continue to act normally among their friends and anybody else they meet, and also maintain the secret from their other children, who are still in the same apartment. 

If you think they did inform some of their friends, who then became confederates in the enterprise, then we would need to consider what interest those people would have in assisting the McCanns in maintaining a cover story for the death of a child.  Why would someone do this?  Is it likely someone would do this?

I draw no firm conclusions from these thoughts.  I merely propose to you that abduction is not a material impossibility, nor has the continuing claim from the parents that she was abducted been disproved.  If it had been, the McCanns would have been arrested, as the default position if the abduction theory fails is that the McCanns are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, in which case it can be assumed she is dead.  As ever, the burden of proof remains with those who might pursue these allegations.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 01:08:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8564
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5342 on: August 01, 2020, 11:49:AM »
Here is a good post from another site by a user called Quake1028


"If you believe the parents are responsible You have to believe every one of these things is true

Sometime between 6 and 10, MM died, either by accident, or negligence/incompetence/malice of the parents

The parents, both respected doctors and by all accounts loving parents, decided to cover this up for some reason

If this happened before dinner, the parents are stone cold psychopaths who went out as if nothing at all happened

If it happened during dinner, the parents in maybe a 30-45 minute window found out, decided they had to hide her, disposed of/hid the body and:

Made sure there was no evidence that something happened. The only hard evidence really in this case at all that's not conjecture or theory or a disputed sighting is the two dogs. And there is no DNA or other evidence to back up the dogs. Not to mention, why would there be MM's DNA in a car they didn't rent until 25 days after she went missing? Refer to two points below.

Convinced anywhere between 3 and 9 people to go along with this, without having anyone break in the 13 years since.

Either dumped the body somewhere where it has never been found, or hid the body somewhere it was never found, for an undetermined amount of time, and if they hid the body, got to wherever they hid her, disposed of her, and got back without the press, who was following their every move, ever seeing anything, and without leaving any evidence behind in any place they could have reasonably have had access to that there was ever a dead body there. Possibly doing all this without even having the use of a car.

The parents, having gotten away with manslaughter/murder, have fought for 13 years to keep the case in the headlines, instead of just fading into the background at some point.

"

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5343 on: August 01, 2020, 12:48:PM »
Made sure there was no evidence that something happened. The only hard evidence really in this case at all that's not conjecture or theory or a disputed sighting is the two dogs. And there is no DNA or other evidence to back up the dogs. Not to mention, why would there be MM's DNA in a car they didn't rent until 25 days after she went missing? Refer to two points below.

Can I also add to this point that the findings of cadaver odour dogs cannot be considered probative of anything in and of themselves, certainly not in an English criminal court.  If a well-trained dog does detect cadaver odour, drugs or gun residue, or whatever, on an individual or object or premises, then - depending on the situation - one or more individuals become suspects and they and/or their property and effects are searched, and the suspicion is then duly confirmed or not, depending on what is found. 

If, as a result of the search, the suspicion is supported by actual evidence, then the officers who conducted the personal search can be examined in court.  In contrast, a dog cannot talk and its evidence cannot be examined, and the videoed findings of a search using cadaver dogs can only be considered indicative at best for the purposes of an investigation.  It's not in itself serious evidence, especially if the findings are - as here - inchoate. 

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48805
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5344 on: August 01, 2020, 01:34:PM »
You would not leave the patio door of apartment 5A unlocked and go out to a restuarant about 77 metres walk away from patio door to the tapas bar. Because if you did, you would also have had to leave the metal security shutter raised upper most, this is because the patio door cannot be locked from outside, and the mechanism for raising or lowering the shutter can only be operated from inside the apartment beyond the patio door.  If the McCanns left by the patio door method, and they had left the door itself unlocked, they wouldn't be able to exit the apartment by those means if the security shutter on the external side of the sliding patio door was fully lowered and locked down. If they did leave the apartment via the patio door, then the security shutter would have needed to be raised up as high  as required to enable the McCann parents to leave and return...

Now, having personally visited the site, in June 2010, the following facts fall to be considered:-

(1) - the suggestion that the McCanns and their friends wanted a table which allowed them to have a clear view (in the McCanns case) of the patio and the patio door, which they claim they had left unlocked, of course with its corresponding security shutter raised up. But from the dining tables in the restuarant, you cannot see the door, the security shutter, or the patio, because of obsticals blocking the view, from one place to the other, and vice versa. This being true, then why did the McCann parents and there friends make such a song and dance about it - in other words, why use the excuse that you need to be sitting at a dining table which provides a clear view of the unlocked patio door, the raised up security shutter, beyond which they abandoned their very own three young children? It just doesn't make any sense. Let's set the record straight, why would the parents tell the staff of the Ocean Club that they needed a dining table to enable them to watch over and keep an eye on an unlocked patio door, with its raised up security shutter, if they wouldn't have been able to see in any event? The fact in the matter, is that had someone entered or exited apartment 5A whilst the parents and the others were eating their evening meal, they wouldn't have been able to see that person do so. The McCanns would not have been able to tell whether the sliding patio door was open or closed. And, such a person entering or leaving the premises by those means, would know that anybody sat at a dining table at the tapas bar restuarant wouldn't be able to see them coming and going from the apartment. Additionally, any pedestrian walking either up or down the street, who looked toward the patio of 5A, would have a good inkling that the patio door would probably, or in certain circumstances, definitely know that the patio door was unlocked because of one or other, of the following reasons (a) the person had seen both parents leave their apartment by the patio door route, (b) they knew the parents were presently sat at a dining table at the tapas bar, and (c) the person knew that the patio door  in question could not be locked from outside the apartment. Furthermore, such a person would know that with the parents preoccupied with having their evening meal, that they could slink through the gated entrance of the concrete steps and up onto the patio of apartment 5A, and ultimately sneak inside by gently sliding the door open sufficiently in order to enter, and then slide the same door back into a shut position, without risk of being seen!
« Last Edit: August 01, 2020, 01:44:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5345 on: August 01, 2020, 02:37:PM »
Now, having personally visited the site, in June 2010, the following facts fall to be considered:-

I must admit that I have never visited the site, and I don't have your knowledge, Mike, as I have never had much of an interest in the case.  Therefore, I must defer to you on a lot of points.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48805
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5346 on: August 04, 2020, 03:14:AM »
    What a coincidence?

Christian B, is suspected of sex crimes, that took place in Portugal and Germany. Sometimes he wore a face mask, during some of his attacks, and he also had possession of a machete I would also like to make mention of the significance of Jane Tanners alleged sighting of a man she saw at the road junction who was carrying a child in his arms, often referred to as 'TANNERMAN' A suspect with no facial details. 
« Last Edit: August 04, 2020, 04:23:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48805
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5347 on: August 04, 2020, 04:21:AM »
Discarded inside the derelict building across the street from St Vincent's church at Pria De Luz, I found (amongst other things) an empty tube of 'BAYGON' insecticide. Associated with this product is the following image relied upon as part of  the advertisement for the product.

   
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 06:17 AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48805
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5348 on: Yesterday at 06:50 AM »
The suspect (Christian B) is suspected of being responsible for brutal sex crimes inflicted upon women, and children wearing a mask, and of being in possession of a machete, or a similar weapon. As far as my instinct is concerned, there is a tentative link between the disappearence of Madeliene McCann, Jane Tanners 'TANNERMAN', sighting, the sex crime attacks on other victims, a masked intruder, machete or knife weilding psychopatic devil, the derelict building close to St Vincents church in Praia de Luz, the discovery of human bone, the shallow grave,  the 'ghost of Maddie' images,   discarded clothing - what a remarkable coincidence. Is it just a fluke that I pinpointed a key derelict building 10 years (June 2010) before the use of derelict building accommodation now known about Christian B' in Portugal and Germany at this late stage ( Wednesday the 4th August 2020)?


« Last Edit: Yesterday at 12:44 PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48805
Re: The case of Madeleine McCann
« Reply #5349 on: Yesterday at 12:53 PM »
Gerald McCann, knows exactly what happened to his 3 year old daughter (they named her, Madeleine McCann), both parents were fully aware that there was a serious risk that something untoward, was about to happen to the innocent Madeliene....

Before, they all left the UK (28th Dpril 2007)...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...