The case of Madeleine McCann

[Cambridgecutie]

As much as I enjoy reading your posts. I lean towards it being the McCanns and the Tranmers being the only scenario fitting an abduction if indeed there was an abduction.
Here's another video which has got me again leaning towards the McCanns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6HHJGq5Dmo

He is not a credible source imo.  Why would you choose to believe him over UK search expert Mark Harrison?  I can't take people like Pat Brown and Bernt Stellander seriously. 

And the sighting by Jane Tanner was Dr Totman carrying his young daughter. 

Even if you disagree with my Tranmers theory surely you can see how inadequate GA/the investigation was when CT has never even been interviewed as a witness?  Someone who was around MM on Sunday 29th Apr and Thursday 3rd May; someone was was only meters away from MM a couple of hours before she went missing; someone who in all probablility knew MM was home alone in the unlocked apartment.  Why, how was this person allowed to slip under the radar?  Why don't the cranks you hold in high esteem ie the likes of Brown and Stellander consider CT before crazy theories about the McCanns that simply do not stack up. 

How many time have you see the name CT in any of the case material anywhere?

[Cambridgecutie]

And for the doubters over my Tranmers theory look at all the anomalies and contradictions in CAT's WS.  If ever there was a case of 'hiding in plain sight' this is it!

[Jonathan]

As much as I enjoy reading your posts. I lean towards it being the McCanns and the Tranmers being the only scenario fitting an abduction if indeed there was an abduction.
Here's another video which has got me again leaning towards the McCanns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6HHJGq5Dmo

Where's this video of Gerry with changes shoes?

[Cambridgecutie]

Where's this video of Gerry with changes shoes?

I could not even be bothered to ask.  Even if he changed his shoes there could be innocent explanations for this.  The guy is a crank imo.

[Cambridgecutie]

I intend downloading CAT's WS, numbering it and uploading it to make it easier to dissect. 

I have already highlighted what I consider to be a significant inconsistency over the Tapas Bar (TB) ie when describing the view from PF's balcony she included the roof of the tapas bar.  Then later in the interview when asked if she visited the TB she claimed it had not been constructed at the time of her last visit.  Her last visit being when MM disappared.  This to my mind is an attempt to cover up awareness that the parents were dining at TB and leaving the children home alone in the unlocked apartment. 

According to CAT the purpose of the visit to the Algarve was to look at property to buy.  They were staying in a place called Quarteira as this was the location they were looking to buy in.   PDL is approx 55 miles from Quarteira.  After visiting PF on Thursday 3rd May CAT claims they returned to their hotel in Quarteira and yet she claims below ..."and on Friday we passed by car continuing to look at properties and such". I don't understand the "passed by car".  Does she mean passed by PDL in the car?  If she does mean this then it seems to contradict her earlier claim that they were staying in Quarteria to look at property in that area?

We left when it was around 6h30, after having finished eating and doing other things, and on Friday we passed by car, continuing to look at properties and such. We did not visit any estate agents, and on Saturday we left. We got to the airport and heard people talking about a missing child. This did not yet bring anything back and we commented on the horror.

Is this an attempt to say 'well yes we did leave the area shortly before MM disappeared but we were back the following day'.  Without this it could be seen they left shortly before MM disappeared and literally drove off into the sunset with MM.  Well not quite into the sunset as they would have been driving in an Easterly direction towards Quarteria. 

[Cambridgecutie]

PF claims in her WS that on 3rd May she received a visit from her niece in the morning.  No mention of CAT's husband and no mention of going out for lunch with CAT and her husband.

CAT claims in her WS that on 3rd May she visited PF along with her husband.  Upon arrival they spent some time on PF's balcony before the trio went out to lunch, returning to spend further time on the balcony leaving at 6.30pm. 

Are these different accounts significant or just one giving more detail than the other albeit the detail is actually the same?

[snow66!]

I intend downloading CAT's WS, numbering it and uploading it to make it easier to dissect. 

I have already highlighted what I consider to be a significant inconsistency over the Tapas Bar (TB) ie when describing the view from PF's balcony she included the roof of the tapas bar.  Then later in the interview when asked if she visited the TB she claimed it had not been constructed at the time of her last visit.  Her last visit being when MM disappared.  This to my mind is an attempt to cover up awareness that the parents were dining at TB and leaving the children home alone in the unlocked apartment. 

According to CAT the purpose of the visit to the Algarve was to look at property to buy.  They were staying in a place called Quarteira as this was the location they were looking to buy in.   PDL is approx 55 miles from Quarteira.  After visiting PF on Thursday 3rd May CAT claims they returned to their hotel in Quarteira and yet she claims below ..."and on Friday we passed by car continuing to look at properties and such". I don't understand the "passed by car".  Does she mean passed by PDL in the car?  If she does mean this then it seems to contradict her earlier claim that they were staying in Quarteria to look at property in that area?

We left when it was around 6h30, after having finished eating and doing other things, and on Friday we passed by car, continuing to look at properties and such. We did not visit any estate agents, and on Saturday we left. We got to the airport and heard people talking about a missing child. This did not yet bring anything back and we commented on the horror.

Is this an attempt to say 'well yes we did leave the area shortly before MM disappeared but we were back the following day'.  Without this it could be seen they left shortly before MM disappeared and literally drove off into the sunset with MM.  Well not quite into the sunset as they would have been driving in an Easterly direction towards Quarteria.

So both of the Tranmers flew back to England soon after the disappearance then?

[Cambridgecutie]

So both of the Tranmers flew back to England soon after the disappearance then?

I thought I posted about this previously?

Have you seen any flight records?  If not you are relying on the witness whose testimony is under scrutiny 

[Cambridgecutie]

Positive bias, discrimination and prejudice. 

Have the Tranmers been allowed to slip under the radar based on the above?  A middle class, middle-aged couple visiting the Algarve to purchase property and fitting in a visit to an elderly aunt?   

[snow66!]

I thought I posted about this previously?

Have you seen any flight records?  If not you are relying on the witness whose testimony is under scrutiny 

But all we have is the available witness statements to go by, Cutie!
As far as I can see, all you can do is give you're theory to operation Grange or an investigative journalist or such who will follow up your lead and see if the Tranmers story holds up?
Flight records would be the obvious place to start!

[Bubo bubo]

But all we have is the available witness statements to go by, Cutie!
As far as I can see, all you can do is give you're theory to operation Grange or an investigative journalist or such who will follow up your lead and see if the Tranmers story holds up?
Flight records would be the obvious place to start!

There are international laws as well as national ones that prevent disclosure of passenger lists by any persons that do not have the legal right. Police investigating serious crime have access. This is what I understand.

[snow66!]

There are international laws as well as national ones that prevent disclosure of passenger lists by any persons that do not have the legal right. Police investigating serious crime have access. This is what I understand.

Thanks, Bubo! What do you think most likely happened to Maddie?

[Bubo bubo]

Thanks, Bubo! What do you think most likely happened to Maddie?

I tend towards an accident of some description which was covered up. Plenty of choices. How about while KM was in the shower. She could have collided with M and she fell and hit her head.

[Steve_uk]

Positive bias, discrimination and prejudice. 

Have the Tranmers been allowed to slip under the radar based on the above?  A middle class, middle-aged couple visiting the Algarve to purchase property and fitting in a visit to an elderly aunt?   

That's the context of their visit. There would have to be malice aforethought, the opportunity to abduct conveniently arising whilst they were visiting auntie, then the inexplicable act of killing a three-year-old when more likely having discovered the coloboma and panicked she could be identified they would just have left her in a public place for the parents to retrieve.

[snow66!]

I tend towards an accident of some description which was covered up. Plenty of choices. How about while KM was in the shower. She could have collided with M and she fell and hit her head.

OK, thanks, Bubo!