Madeleine McCann

v638sg7k1a92bx

Creol1 wrote: »

You are leaving out: 4. Accidental death and disposal.

That would fall into number 2 but it doesn't make a difference because that theory also doesn't stack up.

Tomw86

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

"ya ya post a link" aka I can't provide a rebuttal to your post so I ask for a link to information that is already in the public domain.

It is well documented that the abduction in the line of inquiry currently being followed by police. The McCann's have had their formal Arguido status in Portugal rescinded years ago and UK police do not consider them suspects. It is considered highly improbable even by sceptics that Madeline wandered off and hasn't been found.

That leaves you with option 1.

Please "provide a link" if you have an alternative theory and preferably one that is not hearsay to save me having to reply pointing out how wrong you are only for you to dig your heels in more.

BTW, have you found your phone yet?

I agree - Option 3 didn't happen.

Option 1 and 2 are very much still probabilities, no proof of either.

And Yes, I have my phone as I am not incompetent, nor reckless so would not leave it unattended somewhere that it could be taken or accidentally broken/thrown in a fit of rage!

Creol1

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

That would fall into number 2 but it doesn't make a difference because that theory also doesn't stack up.

That is incorrect. Number 2 was "murder and disposal".

Murder does not cover accidental death and therefore accidental death does not fall under number 2.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Tomw86 wrote: »

I agree - Option 3 didn't happen.

Option 1 and 2 are very much still probabilities, no proof of either.

Hang on, is there evidence that she didn't wander off? How can you be so sure? There's no evidence to prove she didn't wander off.

See where I'm going with this?

Something Else

I too am somewhat suspicious of David Payne. He allegedly made those sexual remarks to Gerry previously. Allegedly liked to bathe all the kids. Gerry sent him to check on Kate on the 3rd. Kate and David’s statements completely contradicted each other in terms of what Kate was wearing, how long the conversation lasted, whether he had gone inside or not.
He also didn’t arrive to dinner until 30 odd mins after the others, followed by Gerry’s check.

If any of the tapas 7 were involved in something with the McCanns, it would likely be him.

Yet no police investigation seemed to consider him at all.

wmpdd3

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

He was interviewed, the interview is riddled with ams and ahhhhs.

This is in marked contrast to the videos of him giving talks.

v638sg7k1a92bx

wmpdd3 wrote: »

He was interviewed, the interview is riddled with ams and ahhhhs.

This is in marked contrast to the videos of him giving talks.

Who is "him"?

wmpdd3

Something Else

wmpdd3 wrote: »

He was interviewed, the interview is riddled with ams and ahhhhs.

This is in marked contrast to the videos of him giving talks.

Yeah I’ve read his statement. He certainly seemed all over the place and rambling.

These contradicting statements are all so suspicious.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah I’ve read his statement. He certainly seemed all over the place and rambling.

These contradicting statements are all so suspicious.

Reading a statement from a piece of paper versus being questioned by police.

If we transcribed a conversation with you and your friends it would be riddled with umm and ahhs.

MD1990

Something Else

people going about ontimelines etc.

Thr truth is no one know the exact timelines as it is inconsistent. They had time to hide the body or get help.

The biggest giveaway in the interviews. No emotion at all.
Gerry McCann coukd be a sociopath

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKxBiyVIhiU

7.40 is devious.

OwlsZat

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

MD1990 wrote: »

people going about ontimelines etc.

Thr truth is no one know the exact timelines as it is inconsistent. They had time to hide the body or get help.

The biggest giveaway in the interviews. No emotion at all.
Gerry McCann coukd be a sociopath

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKxBiyVIhiU

7.40 is devious.

They're worried leaving the patio door open and bouncing into their children occasionally will be seen as justification to take the twins off them. All the character assessments I read of Gerry are pretty positive. If anyone was a sociopath it would be Kate. More likely though she was/is mentally ill and a bit self absorbed.

Payne also definitely the odd ball of the Tapas 7.

chicorytip

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

That would fall into number 2 but it doesn't make a difference because that theory also doesn't stack up.

Why not? There has been no evidence gathered to prove that either an accidental overdose or fatal assault did not take place in the apartment. Quite the contrary. There was clear evidence of the scene having been "arranged" in an attempt to make it appear as if an abduction had occurred. It is simply not credible that an abductor would not leave some trace of evidence behind them even allowing for the fact that the apartment had been contaminated before the evidence gathering process began. The removal of the body could have taken place quickly with the assistance of others - not members of the tapas 7 - who were already well known to the McCann's and would have had access to a nearby property with a deep freezing facility.

wmpdd3

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

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Who is "him"?

David Payne

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

Why not? There has been no evidence gathered to prove that either an accidental overdose or fatal assault did not take place in the apartment. Quite the contrary. There was clear evidence of the scene having been "arranged" in an attempt to make it appear as if an abduction had occurred. It is simply not credible that an abductor would not leave some trace of evidence behind them even allowing for the fact that the apartment had been contaminated before the evidence gathering process began. The removal of the body could have taken place quickly with the assistance of others - not members of the tapas 7 - who were already well known to the McCann's and would have had access to a nearby property with a deep freezing facility.

I've been over this ad nausea. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Using your logic, I could argue that there was no evidence that Madeline had not been abducted by aliens. You have no evidence to prove this did not happen. You cannot ask someone to prove a negative, that's like saying prove God doesn't exist, or prove that Guinness doesn't cause cancer.

Btw there is no "evidence" as you call it of anything to suggest the McCanns did it. Zero.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Because all other plausible scenarios have been ruled out which is why the police are focusing on the abduction. There is a list of possible scenarios

1. Abduction
2. Murder and disposal
3. Wandered off

2 and 3 have been ruled out which, that leaves us with option 1.

Wishfull thinking. Nothing has been 'ruled out' btw. Read the thread.

Is this a new poll lol?

gozunda

Something Else

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes there are, it was confirmed by creche staff and other parents. They had gone out on boats on an excursion for the afternoon. One man in the documentary talks about Madeleine playing with his daughter on that trip.
You can also view the signout sheet online that includes Kate's signature and a time stamp.

As well as that, the last recorded photo of Madeleine was taken by the pool that afternoon, at circa 2pm, which again was time stamped and verified. So she was most certainly alive, well and out and about until at least 6pm on the day she disappeared.

By whom?

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Wishfull thinking. Nothing has been 'ruled out' btw. Read the thread.

Is this a new poll or something?

Line of inquiry the police are currently following is an abduction.

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Line of inquiry the police are currently following is an abduction.

Which they have ZERO evidence off and have had no real leads in 12 years ,

cnocbui

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

...and we come full circle to the central truth of the whole matter, which is that there is no evidence that gives any indication as to what might have happened to Madeline McCann.

OwlsZat

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

Can people stop continually misusing the words proof and evidence.

proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth
evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

So proof is evidence which allow allows truth to be established and evidence is information or facts which allows us to establish the truth.

While there isn't much physical evidence there's tones of other evidence collected by the PJ. Every single piece of information collected related to the case is evidence. Which each individual can decide if they believe there is proof that any conclusions can be drawn.

gozunda

Something Else

cnocbui wrote: »

...and we come full circle to the central truth of the whole matter, which is that there is no evidence that gives any indication as to what might have happened to Madeline McCann.

What OwlsZat said. It's unfortunate that nothing adds up on this case and is why as a crime where a child inexplicably disappeared, it remains that practically everything about the case remains under discussion.

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

gozunda wrote: »

What OwlsZat said. It's unfortunate that nothing adds up on this case and is why as a crime where a child inexplicably disappeared, it remains that practically everything about the case remains under discussion.

You'd have to imagine with the total lack of any information or the total lack of leads brought forward by anyone that it could not have been a gang or a ring of traffickers.

12 years on multiple arrests for this sort of things hundreds of people in gangs locked up for these sort of crimes and million of images and nothing on Maddie ever came up ,

Surely if it was gang someone arrested involved in trafficking would know something and could have used information as leverage for themselves , Even a person short on cash or had a falling out with people form that world could to use the information for the cash reward,

That would leave you to think it was one person (lone wolf ) or two people ( McCanns) anything beyond that some information would have surely come out of somewhere at this stage,

Tomw86

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Line of inquiry the police are currently following is an abduction.

And yet after 12 years they still have how much evidence that this definitely happened?

Yeah, didn't think so...............

OwlsZat

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

The evidence casefile has over 10,000 pages all available for your viewing pleasure at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/

You should get familiar....

OwlsZat

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

yourdeadwright wrote: »

You'd have to imagine with the total lack of any information or the total lack of leads brought forward by anyone that it could not have been a gang or a ring of traffickers.

12 years on multiple arrests for this sort of things hundreds of people in gangs locked up for these sort of crimes and million of images and nothing on Maddie ever came up ,

Surely if it was gang someone arrested involved in trafficking would know something and could have used information as leverage for themselves , Even a person short on cash or had a falling out with people form that world could to use the information for the cash reward,

That would leave you to think it was one person (lone wolf ) or two people ( McCanns) anything beyond that some information would have surely come out of somewhere at this stage,

That did cross my mind. Particularly the way the photo of Rui Pedro post abduction is talked about in the Documentary. Have you done any digging in terms of how many of these type of rings have been bust in recent times.

There also was tip offs of various types, just nothing that could be found to be reliable. Could she still be captive. Now that's an impossible question.

https://www.her.ie/news/woman-freed-held-captive-abuser-10-years-377106

yourdeadwright

Accident happened, parents hid body

OwlsZat wrote: »

That did cross my mind. Particularly the way the photo of Rui Pedro post abduction is talked about in the Documentary. Have you done any digging in terms of how many of these type of rings have been bust in recent times.

There also was tip offs of various types, just nothing that could be found to be reliable. Could she still be captive. Now that's an impossible question.

https://www.her.ie/news/woman-freed-held-captive-abuser-10-years-377106

Unfortunately there id imagine there is zero chance she is alive ,
She is possibly the most famous abduction to ever happen on the planet with internet and Netflix and the likes, because of her of her distinct eye she would surely notice herself, or other people would notice her ,

hawkelady

Something Else

Everyone in this thread should really comprehend that the PDL priest has now come out and said that he feels the mccanns betrayed him !!! Why on Earth would he say this unless he has some fact that incriminates the mccanns but cause of canon law , he’ll take it to his grave

MonkieSocks

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

FATHER_PACHECO

When questioned, he said he Never Heard their Confessions, perhaps because they only spoke English.

MonkieSocks

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

*removed at user request*

chicorytip

Something Else

hawkelady wrote:

Everyone in this thread should really comprehend that the PDL priest has now come out and said that he feels the mccanns betrayed him !!! Why on Earth would he say this unless he has some fact that incriminates the mccanns but cause of canon law , he’ll take it to his grave

What sort of priest would make such a statement, in any event? Like many other claims made by those associated with this case you would have to doubt it's authenticity.

OwlsZat

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

chicorytip wrote: »

What sort of priest would make such a statement, in any event? Like many other claims made by those associated with this case you would have to doubt it's authenticity.

The priest was annoyed because he gave them a key to the church for refuge when he didnt know they were suspects. It has nothing to do with confession as he clearly stated afterwards. He just thought they were underhanded which probabaly they weren't. Possibly they pretended to be devout Catholics to try gain the public's support but that's the only possible conspiracy here.

OwlsZat

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

Jane Tanner and David Payne are they the last suspects. Does anyone think these slips are Freudian?

It would also explain why Gerry and Jes don't see Tanner when she susposibldy passed them just as Madeline is abducted, why Gerry is annoyed with Jane when she places him and Jes on the wrong side of the path during the reconstruction and the pitiful attempt she gives at creating an efit of the supposed abductor.

https://youtu.be/z9mcOMnx0Kc

TallyRand

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

Some thoughts on the whole thing:

Parents didn’t do it, would have been much more manageable to let her “dissapearance” come about in the middle of the night, why try stage manage that scenario when so many people about and less time to clear up / get head and story straight

Parents did lash a load of phergen or calpol whatever into the kids that night when all still fine, however not a “part” of the story for me

Robert Murat fully in the clear watertight? He’d fit very well according to any criminal profiler book I’ve read, stressor point in life (recent split up with wife)

Someone did go in and snatch her due to dissing parents absence each night. Perfect storm of misfortunate events.

OwlsZat

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Jane Tanner and David Payne are they the last suspects. Does anyone think these slips are Freudian?

It would also explain why Gerry and Jes don't see Tanner when she susposibldy passed them just as Madeline is abducted, why Gerry is annoyed with Jane when she places him and Jes on the wrong side of the path during the reconstruction and the pitiful attempt she gives at creating an efit of the supposed abductor.

https://youtu.be/z9mcOMnx0Kc

Wow. Might be flipping again. Makes a clear case that the anesthetists may have covered up accidentally killing Madeline. Maybe Gerry was angry with Jane for placing him on the same side of the path as the window.

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-5-sedation.html?m=1

iamwhoiam

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

I cam across this article in the Sun .I have no idea how factual it is but there are some good photos that give you an idea of the layout and the apartment .,
There is one mistake on the apartment photo , it points to the hall door as being the door to the veranda .

https://www.thesun.ie/news/3915195/madeleine-mccann-case-could-be-blown-open-by-new-tests-on-inconclusive-dna-in-holiday-home-and-hire-car-expert-claims/

MonkieSocks

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

OwlsZat wrote: »

Jane Tanner and David Payne are they the last suspects. Does anyone think these slips are Freudian?

It would also explain why Gerry and Jes don't see Tanner when she susposibldy passed them just as Madeline is abducted, why Gerry is annoyed with Jane when she places him and Jes on the wrong side of the path during the reconstruction and the pitiful attempt she gives at creating an efit of the supposed abductor.

https://youtu.be/z9mcOMnx0Kc

There are always discrepancies between eye witness in lots of cases.

For example

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

Martin Smith:-
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined.
Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short.


Aoife Smith :-
— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar.
When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.

— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.



Peter Smith:-
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined.
Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot.
In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.


Aoife seems to be right



Time 21.27.40


____________________________________________

As for the Tanner description, I think she did pretty well

.

gozunda

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

There are always discrepancies between eye witness in lots of cases...

.

Please.

No one denies there can be inconsistencies. That is a given. Its the frankly crazy contradictions of Janes various descriptions of this sighting and the fact that this supposed sighting was not witnessed by Gerry or Jez who stood talking on the same street, who did not see her or the alleged man carrying a child. Strange that.

For a bit of balance you may wish to add Jane Tanners multiple accounts and many many inconsistencies regarding the description she alleges she saw that night carrying a child.

As for the e-fit drawing you provided above - This was produced by the McCanns private investigators much later and released on 26 October 2007 some 5 months after the event.

Interestingly Jane Tanner also identified Robert Murat as definitely being the same man who she saw that night, even though she herself has said she got only a side view....

MonkieSocks

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

gozunda wrote: »

Interestingly Jane Tanner also identified Robert Murrat as definitely being the same man who she saw that night, even though she herself has said she got only a side view....

Please

Can you present a reliable official link for where Jane Tanner said that.

She never said that.

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

gozunda

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

*removed at user request*

Seriously?

First you might explain where you abstracted that very strange and bizarre commentary on the Gaspar police interviews

That any of that (in italics) frankly vicious misogyny can be attributed to a professional source is quite unbelievable.

Interestingly the source link you provide does NOT contain any of the commentary on said abstract. eg. 'Woman scorned' :rolleyes:

Can you present a reliable official link for where the detailed police man said that.

Would you be good enough to explain. Thanks.

MonkieSocks

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

gozunda wrote: »

Seriously?.


Interestingly Jane Tanner also identified Robert Murrat as definitely being the same man who she saw that night, even though she herself has said she got only a side view....

I asked you for a link to the allegation you made regarding Jane Tanner - Robert Murat.
Harangued indeed

You didn't provide it, so I will not be responding to you any more.

gozunda

Something Else

MonkieSocks wrote: »

I asked you for a link to the allegation you made regarding Jane Tanner - Robert Murat.
Harangued* indeed
You didn't provide it, so I will not be responding to you any more.

(Eh your edit above subsequently mixing up my two different comments in what you quoted and then including a bit* from this comment shows you have 'responded' btw...)

And yet you still can't provide a reliable link for the bizarre commentary on the Gaspar statement as being from the PJ files? Really.

Considering that in my first post, I detailed in the interest of balance you may wish to add Jane Tanners multiple accounts and many many inconsistencies regarding the description of the individual she alleges she saw that night carrying a child.

But you haven't done that either...

And now I am harangued for not replying to something which is in the public record as some subsequent whataboutry? Lol.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Tomw86 wrote: »

And yet after 12 years they still have how much evidence that this definitely happened?

Yeah, didn't think so...............

And yet after being told 12 times absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

On the balance of probability, abduction most likely and definitely more likely than the other theories put forward so if you are so certain it was not an abduction then you have to be even more certain that the parents were not involved in the disappearance, murder or accidental death as there is not a scintilla of credible evidence to support theses theories and please don't start with he pseudo dog and DNA evidence, I've shot those down numerous times on this thread that I can't be bothered to explain it again.

Likewise with the Martin Smith eyewitness evidence that everyone here hangs their hat on. Anyone with experience in police investigations will tell you that eye witness evidence is highly unreliable and needs to be carried out in a controlled environment . Smith was predisposed to Gerry McCann's face which had been all over the media meaning if Martin Smith had identified Gerry McCann in a police line up, the evidence may not have been admissible because he was predisposed to McCann from the TB and newspapers. We just had a similar situation in Ireland with the Regency hotel murder over the identification of the alleged conspirator who was on trial because the control environment of identify the alleged was contaminated by the Gardai simply because two Gadai were in the same room when they alleged was identified. This is considered one of the reasons, amongst others, why the DPP dropped the case. So if you take the Martin Smith sighting and multiply by ten, that's how unreliable his eyewitness efit is.

But faced with all this, you still to choose to put the blinkers on when faced with those facts and roll out the line "no evidence of abduction.
Unless they person took a s**t in the corner of the room,what evidence would you expect to find, the amount of time spent in the apartment was probable seconds.

chicorytip

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

But faced with all this, you still to choose to put the blinkers on when faced with those facts and roll out the line "no evidence of abduction. Unless they person took a s**t in the corner of the room,what evidence would you expect to find, the amount of time spent in the apartment was probable seconds.

What is your opinion on how an abduction was successfully accomplished in that case? Do you think the original theory - based on Kate McCanns description of the scene she discovered - that abductor and child left through the bedroom window is plausible?

v638sg7k1a92bx

chicorytip wrote: »

What is your opinion on how an abduction was successfully accomplished in that case? Do you think the original theory - based on Kate McCanns description of the scene she discovered - that abductor and child left through the bedroom window is plausible?

They walked in picked up the child and and left door they came. Maybe they considered going out the window opened it, closed it, whatever. I expect that the person involved was in the room for a matter of seconds. But posters who are clinging onto the "he said this", "she said that", "the tapas 7 said this". It is perfectly acceptable for the recall of the sequence of events not to be consistent, you are dealing with an extremely emotionally charged situation with multiple people charging around looking for a missing child. You cannot take every single word that they uttered literally in this type of situation. The parents are running around in a mad panic going through every possible situation of what may have happened to their child, it is not unreasonable for them to consider the option that someone may have exited the window based on their thought process at that point in time.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

And yet after being told 12 times absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

With respect that truism works for all the possible scenarios and not just the one you like.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

On the balance of probability, abduction most likely and definitely more likely than the other theories put forward so if you are so certain it was not an abduction then you have to be even more certain that the parents were not involved in the disappearance, murder or accidental death as there is not a scintilla of credible evidence to support theses theories and please don't start with he pseudo dog and DNA evidence, I've shot those down numerous times on this thread that I can't be bothered to explain it again.

Well you see all that's just your opinion. Stating it doesn't make it true however - one way or the other.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Likewise with the Martin Smith eyewitness evidence that everyone here hangs their hat on. Anyone with experience in police investigations will tell you that eye witness evidence is highly unreliable and needs to be carried out in a controlled environment .

Are you saying you have 'experience' in police investigations?? And where are you taking this from? You do know that the Smith's police interviews were undertaken by the Police in a controlled environment - yeah? And the same police have stated they believed the witnesses involved to be reliable etc

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Smith was predisposed to Gerry McCann's face which had been all over the media meaning if Martin Smith had identified Gerry McCann in a police line up, the evidence may not have been admissible because he was predisposed to McCann from the TB and newspapers. We just had a similar situation in Ireland with the Regency hotel murder over the identification of the alleged conspirator who was on trial because the control environment of identify the alleged was contaminated by the Gardai simply because two Gadai were in the same room when they alleged was identified. This is considered one of the reasons, amongst others, why the DPP dropped the case. So if you take the Martin Smith sighting and multiply by ten, that's how unreliable his eyewitness efit is.

And that particular detail can be leveled at most anyone who is identified by an witness. Significant issues however come to the front when witnesses are not 'independant' as in the case of Jane Tanner.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

But faced with all this, you still to choose to put the blinkers on when faced with those facts and roll out the line "no evidence of abduction.
Unless they person took a s**t in the corner of the room,what evidence would you expect to find, the amount of time spent in the apartment was probable seconds.

It remains the evidence for all the scenarios is at best circumstantial. Possible evidence which would be likley left behind or observed in the case of an abduction has already been detailed "many times". Just because some have ignored it - does not mean that the absence of such evidence therefore proves abduction!. That indeed is a crazy theory imo.

Imo 'anyone with experience in police investigations' keeps an open mind especially where there is no absolute evidence and what is believed to have happend is largely based on opinion and speculation

OwlsZat

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

gozunda wrote: »

Are you saying you have 'experience' in police investigations?? or where are you taking this from? You do know that the Smith's police interviews were undertaken by the Police in a controlled environment - yeah? And the same police have stated they believed the witnesses involved

Smith said 60-80% reliable. That's indicative of not being sure. 50 - 50 being honest.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Gets tiresome having to through each of these one by one and no matter what conclusive evidence is put in front of you, it’s just spun into another conspiracy but here goes

gozunda wrote: »

With respect that truism works for all the possible scenarios and not just the one you do or do not like.

But you and others are ruling out the possibility of an abduction on the basis of no evidence but cite other less plausible theories will little and in some cases no evidence. So that truism doesn’t work in all cases because I am not ruling out the abduction theory, you are.

gozunda wrote: »

Well you see all that's just your opinion. Stating it doesn't make it true however - one way or the other.

It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact! The scientific tests on the DNA and the cadaver dog evidence do not implicate the McCanns.
The DNA sample that was taken from the car three weeks after the disappearance matched five different people. Some of that DNA matched Madeline, however half of Madeline’s DNA is made up of her mother and the other half is made up of her father not to mention her twin brother and sister were in that car. Therefore, the DNA “evidence” proves absolutely nothing.
Leaving those facts aside for a second, and for arguments sake you believe that the DNA evidence is credible (which it isn’t) that means you would have to believe that the Mccanns moved their dead child’s body in that rental car 3 weeks after her disappearance while the world’s media and police were watching them. Not only that, you would also have to believe that they hid her body for three weeks in a fridge without being discovered. This is a totally and utterly implausible suggestion.

gozunda wrote: »

You do know that the Smith's police interviews were undertaken by the Police in a controlled environment - yeah? And the same police have stated they believed the witnesses involved to be reliable etc.

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter that Smith’s statement was taken by the police, who else would you expect to take the statement? It’s the fact that he had been predisposed to Gerry McCann via the constant media coverage for weeks before he made identified the man he allegedly saw as being Gerry McCann. It can also be the case that the police found Smith to be telling the truth but it is also often the case that that people believe that they are telling the truth and they believe what they have seen to be real. False memory is a real thing and police and investigators are aware of this as it happens so often in police investigations because witnesses want to inject themselves into the investigation of feel that they are helping the police, the attention that comes with it. False memory happens to people every day, did it ever happened to you where you could have swore you did, saw or said something only to find out that you recalled it incorrectly? Or you could have been certain that you were told something by person A only and find out later that you were told by person B. That’s why people write things down, email reminders, why we keep diaries, because our memories are not as good as we think they are.
There is not one person reading this thread who can honestly say that this has never happened to them, not one.

gozunda wrote: »

And that particular detail can be leveled at most anyone who is identified by an witness. Significant issues however come to the front when witnesses are not 'independant' as in the case of Jane Tanner.

In the Tanner sighting, a witness came forward who confirmed that he was carrying his child home from the night crèche that night which gives the Tanner sighing more credibility than the Smith sighting because the witness can corroborate the approximate time, the location and he bore a similar physical and clothing resemblance to the e-fit that was sketched by the police before the witness came forward.

As for the “independence” of Jane Tanner, we now start going back down the rabbit hole of “pact of silence” between the Tapas 7. At the beginning of an investigation you would have to ask the question why would this person lie, and for you to believe that conspiracy you would also have to believe that the McCanns accidentally or intentionally killed their daughter, that Gerry McCann hid or disposed of the body and made it back in time for dinner in approx. 2.5 hours (Madeline was last seen approx. 6pm and Gerry was at the restaurant at approx. 8.30pm. At some point during dinner the McCanns would have told their seven friends what just happened and for everyone to please keep it a secret, they would then have to stage this manic scene when the alarm was raised for Madeline’s disappearance and in the twelve years since not one of them has come forward. As any police investigator will tell you, not only is it difficult for two people to maintain a cover story, especially in a murder or disappearance, but for seven people to maintain a cover story for 12 years and two police investigations would be nothing short of a miracle.
Before you go down the route of “oh look their stories didn’t match, they lied, they changed their stories” this is normal and to be expected in this type of scenario. It would be unusual if all their statements matched. Furthermore, the changes in their statements were not cases we see in other investigations where people give false alibis or say they were in one place when they were in another, or got the day and time wrong. The changes in the statement by the Tapas 7 were differences of 15/20 minutes, where they realised they went in back door instead of a front door or other minor differences where they thought this information would be used to help the police investigation.

gozunda wrote: »

It remains the evidence for all the scenarios is at best circumstantial. Possible evidence which would be likley left behind or observed in the case of an abduction has already been detailed "many times". Just because some have ignored it - does not mean that the absence of such evidence therefore somehow proves abduction!. That indeed would be a crazy theory imo.
Imo 'anyone with experience in police investigations' keeps an open mind especially where there is no absolute evidence and what is believed to have happend is largely based on opinion and speculation

The police will always take new evidence into consideration and if that points them a different direction then that’s where they will go. The police will focus their resources on the most probable scenario which at this stage is an abduction because at this stage they can effectively rule out the parents’ involvement by disproving the DNA, the dog “evidence”, the e-fit for the tanner sighting which was corroborated allows them to rule out other suspects. It’s a process of elimination and the gathering of information and evidence at this stage point points to an abduction.


It blows my mind why people find this so difficult to get their heads around but I suppose that is to be expected when posters come on and make statements like “I trust dogs over people any day”

CollyFlower

The night before Madeline went missing she said to her parents something about the twins crying for her.. I also read that they were crying for over 2 hours, is that true? Who reported / confirmed that they were crying for over 2 hours? (Constantly crying for over 2 hours) If that was the case, did they even check on them at all?

MonkieSocks

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

For clarification Purposes ONLY

Evidence of Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview I


.

DC 4078 FERGUSON: “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”.


Jane Tanner: “Umm”.

DC 4078 FERGUSON “And you said, you described his hair quite well.
Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”


Jane Tanner “ “I don’t think so.
Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again,
I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”

DC 4078 FERGUSON: “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”.

Jane Tanner “No”

DC 4078 FERGUSON: “You don’t feel it was the same person?”

Jane Tanner “No, I don’t, no”

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

_________________________________

For clarification Purposes ONLY

Evidence of Witness Statement

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date 2007-05-04

No mention of Murat

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

For clarification Purposes ONLY

Evidence of Witness Statement

Jane Michelle Tanner

Date diligence: 2007/05/10 Time: 16h35m

No mention of Murat

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm


All the above statement are the only one's Jane Tanner gave to the Police

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Gets tiresome having to through each of these one by one and no matter what conclusive evidence is put in front of you, it’s just spun into another conspiracy but here goes

It's a hard life teaching the peasants eh? And just because someone points out the flaws in your argument does NOT make them 'conspiracies' (sic) btw.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

But you and others are ruling out the possibility of an abduction on the basis of no evidence but cite other less plausible theories will little and in some cases no evidence. So that truism doesn’t work in all cases because I am not ruling out the abduction theory, you are.

Nope. Wrong. Not ruling out any possibilities. At the present time the paucity of real information as to what happened that night means that they are all more or less unlikley and / or plausible imo.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact! The scientific tests on the DNA and the cadaver dog evidence do not implicate the McCanns.The DNA sample that was taken from the car three weeks after the disappearance matched five different people. Some of that DNA matched Madeline, however half of Madeline’s DNA is made up of her mother and the other half is made up of her father not to mention her twin brother and sister were in that car. Therefore, the DNA “evidence” proves absolutely nothing.
Leaving those facts aside for a second, and for arguments sake you believe that the DNA evidence is credible (which it isn’t) that means you would have to believe that the Mccanns moved their dead child’s body in that rental car 3 weeks after her disappearance while the world’s media and police were watching them. Not only that, you would also have to believe that they hid her body for three weeks in a fridge without being discovered. This is a totally and utterly implausible suggestion.

Nope. Wrong. At present it doesn't implicate anyone. But the stange thing is that the McCanns and some others believe is that the only possible outcome is that the undertaking of such investigations was solely to implicate them. How can they and others not accept the use of this type of investigation could potentially solve the mystery of how and why the child disappeared? Very odd that.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter that Smith’s statement was taken by the police, who else would you expect to take the statement? It’s the fact that he had been predisposed to Gerry McCann via the constant media coverage for weeks before he made identified the man he allegedly saw as being Gerry McCann. It can also be the case that the police found Smith to be telling the truth but it is also often the case that that people believe that they are telling the truth and they believe what they have seen to be real. False memory is a real thing and police and investigators are aware of this as it happens so often in police investigations because witnesses want to inject themselves into the investigation of feel that they are helping the police, the attention that comes with it. False memory happens to people every day, did it ever happened to you where you could have swore you did, saw or said something only to find out that you recalled it incorrectly? Or you could have been certain that you were told something by person A only and find out later that you were told by person B. That’s why people write things down, email reminders, why we keep diaries, because our memories are not as good as we think they are.
There is not one person reading this thread who can honestly say that this has never happened to them, not one.

And yet the same criticism can be levelled at Tanner and all and she was NOT an independent witness. I reckon the police forces are generally better qualified at this type of stuff than the average random boards user tbh

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

In the Tanner sighting, a witness came forward who confirmed that he was carrying his child home from the night crèche that night which gives the Tanner sighing more credibility than the Smith sighting because the witness can corroborate the approximate time, the location and he bore a similar physical and clothing resemblance to the e-fit that was sketched by the police before the witness came forward.

Lucky for her that he did. Even Gerry didn't agree with Janes testimony to the police about that night tbh.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

As for the “independence” of Jane Tanner, we now start going back down the rabbit hole of “pact of silence” between the Tapas 7. At the beginning of an investigation you would have to ask the question why would this person lie, and for you to believe that conspiracy you would also have to believe that the McCanns accidentally or intentionally killed their daughter, that Gerry McCann hid or disposed of the body and made it back in time for dinner in approx. 2.5 hours (Madeline was last seen approx. 6pm and Gerry was at the restaurant at approx. 8.30pm. At some point during dinner the McCanns would have told their seven friends what just happened and for everyone to please keep it a secret, they would then have to stage this manic scene when the alarm was raised for Madeline’s disappearance and in the twelve years since not one of them has come forward. As any police investigator will tell you, not only is it difficult for two people to maintain a cover story, especially in a murder or disappearance, but for seven people to maintain a cover story for 12 years and two police investigations would be nothing short of a miracle.

Nope. Wrong. No 'pact of silence' and no 'conspiracy' needed (sic). Tanner is not 'independent' by virtue of having discussed the crime with others directly related to to the crime victim, having learned/ overheard discussion of same prior to any investigation and having seen / met Robert Murat previously. The main problem is that the Tapas 9 timeline has so many contradictions you could drive a fleet of buses between them and these problems are further involved by the testimony of a range of independent witneses not related or involved with the Tapas 9. It remains we have no idea whether it was the parents or someone else who were 'wot responsible'

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Before you go down the route of “oh look their stories didn’t match, they lied, they changed their stories” this is normal and to be expected in this type of scenario. It would be unusual if all their statements matched. Furthermore, the changes in their statements were not cases we see in other investigations where people give false alibis or say they were in one place when they were in another, or got the day and time wrong. The changes in the statement by the Tapas 7 were differences of 15/20 minutes, where they realised they went in back door instead of a front door or other minor differences where they thought this information would be used to help the police investigation.

Nope. Incorrect. See above.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

The police will always take new evidence into consideration and if that points them a different direction then that’s where they will go. The police will focus their resources on the most probable scenario which at this stage is an abduction because at this stage they can effectively rule out the parents’ involvement by disproving the DNA, the dog “evidence”, the e-fit for the tanner sighting which was corroborated allows them to rule out other suspects. It’s a process of elimination and the gathering of information and evidence at this stage point points to an abduction.

Well that's good. That's presuming that they are not ignoring all other possibilities because of political pressure in order to save face or whatever. And no that does not need a conspiracy btw.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It blows my mind why people find this so difficult to get their heads around but I suppose that is to be expected when posters come on and make statements like “I trust dogs over people any day”

It blows my mind why some find all this so difficult to get their heads around but I suppose that is to be expected when posters come on and daft make statements such as " abduction has been shown to be the most likley possible explanation & etc ..."