Madeleine McCann

Steve F

SusieBlue wrote: »

No, but any investigator worth their salt would have looked into it. The Portuguese were desperate to pin it on the McCann's, if there was any possibility that they date/time of the photos had been manipulated I'm sure they had the man power to investigate and prove that.

What?

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

No

Ok so we've no evidence that the photograph/device/card was checked.

SusieBlue

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

limnam wrote: »

did a trained professional examine the card/device ?

You're exhausting, this was one of the earliest conspiracy theories put out there as "proof" that the McCanns were involved, so I'm sure the possibility was thoroughly investigated by the police.
I'm sure if anything of note was found, it would have been used to implicate the McCanns.

Plumbthedepths

Boom_Bap wrote:

This was a good few years ago when photograph editing software was not widely available, maybe just photoshop which had a hefty license with it. That would rule out everyone.

No it would possibly rule out people that didn't have the means to pay for a license but not everyone.

SusieBlue

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

limnam wrote: »

Ok so we've no evidence that the photograph/device/card was checked.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: Quoting one word out of my reply, how mature of you. Fabulous way to conduct yourself in a debate. Well done.

Also, why do you believe the Portuguese police wouldn't question this or follow this line of enquiry? Do you think they are incompetent?

SusieBlue

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

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No it would possibly rule out people that didn't have the means to pay for a license but not everyone.

There was barely even wifi back in 2007, let alone in Portuguese holiday resorts.

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm sure if anything of note was found, it would have been used to implicate the McCanns.

I'm sure you're sure, but there's no evidence.


Which is what we're interested in, not what you assume

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

No of course not, a better choice of word would be professional, which is what I edited it to. Do you think if you downloaded some computer software to have a go off of, you could compete with a professional forensic IT specialist who actually works in the field?

Again you wish to suggest only expertise to carry out a certain task exists only in a specific profession.

Charmeleon

SusieBlue wrote: »

You're exhausting, this was one of the earliest conspiracy theories put out there as "proof" that the McCanns were involved, so I'm sure the possibility was thoroughly investigated by the police.
I'm sure if anything of note was found, it would have been used to implicate the McCanns.

In fairness the photo was only released after Gerry had made his first trip home so if, as seems likely, the memory card was brought by him to get the photo from it, then the Portuguese police would have no access to it and no power to order searches of the family home in the UK. They were not officially suspects at the time either.

SusieBlue

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

limnam wrote: »

I'm sure you're sure, but there's no evidence.


Which is what we're interested in, not what you assume

Why would the Portuguese police not follow this line of enquiry if its as promising as you think it is? Why would they not investigate the brother in law????

Steve F

SusieBlue wrote: »

There was barely even wifi back in 2007, let alone in Portuguese holiday resorts.

Wait a second....what has wifi got to do with it??

SusieBlue

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

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Again you wish to suggest only expertise to carry out a certain task exists only in a specific profession.

Do you only post here to nit pick and play devils advocate?
But yes, someone with expertise to carry out certain tasks USUALLY only occur in the specific profession in question.
Normally, the best person for the job is the person whose area of expertise it is. This is a generalistion, but it is USUALLY the case.

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why would the Portuguese police not follow this line of enquiry if its as promising as you think it is? Why would they not investigate the brother in law????

why would Kate McCann refuse to answer questions?


why would she spend hundreds of thousands on con men?


so many questions....

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

There was barely even wifi back in 2007, let alone in Portuguese holiday resorts.

Were laptops nonexistant aswell?

SusieBlue

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

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Were laptops nonexistant aswell?

Sorry, can you please quote where I mentioned anything about laptops, thanks a mill.

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you only post here to nit pick and play devils advocate?

It's a bit rich coming from someone who has been caught already telling porkies.

SusieBlue

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

limnam wrote: »

why would Kate McCann refuse to answer questions?


why would she spend hundreds of thousands on con men?


so many questions....

You need to answer that question. If you think that there is a possibility that Gerry's brother in law successfully manipulated the metadata of that photo, you need to answer why in your opinion the police didn't investigate that at the time.

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

You need to answer that question. If you think that there is a possibility that Gerry's brother in law successfully manipulated the metadata of that photo, you need to answer why in your opinion the police didn't investigate that at the time.

I don't know if his brother manipulated it.


What I know is there is no evidence it was verified date/time

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

Do you only post here to nit pick and play devils advocate? But yes, someone with expertise to carry out certain tasks USUALLY only occur in the specific profession in question. Normally, the best person for the job is the person whose area of expertise it is. This is a generalistion, but it is USUALLY the case.

Public forum I thought, is permission to post required? So usually but certainly not always. Many lay people become experts in a field they are interested in it not their profession.

SusieBlue

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

limnam wrote: »

It's a bit rich coming from someone who has been caught already telling porkies.

You're actually exhausting. You literally only post to stir the pot.

You've added nothing of substance only to suggest and endorse random conspiracy theories, such as Gerry's brother in law manipulated the metadata, yet you run away and refuse to answer when asked why you think this line of enquiry wouldn't be followed and ruled out.

Boom_Bap

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

limnan and SusieBlue
Please do not post in the thread again

SusieBlue

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

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Public forum I thought, is permission to post required? So usually but certainly not always. Many lay people become experts in a field they are interested in it not their profession.

I never disagreed with that? I never said always? What's even your point here?

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

Sorry, can you please quote where I mentioned anything about laptops, thanks a mill.

Response to your WiFi comment.

retro:electro

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

The baseless conspiracies are off the scale.

Anyway. It’s clear as day Gerry had something to do with it, big murdery head on him in that pic.
They didn’t even check Madeline into crèche that day. I believe something was used to trick the staff, maybe a child sized mannequin or a stuffed teddy with a blonde wig. Unless of course the staff are in on it too, it’s possible. Then Gerry ordered his photog brother to manipulate the date of the picture and he did this no questions asked despite the fact his niece was missing. Yes. All of these random people in cahoots together with no reason to be at all, all conspiring and covering up the possible death of the most famous missing child in the world.

Have I seen the light?

SusieBlue

The parents did it

SusieBlue wrote: »

What happened on the 1st & 2nd of May has absolutely zero relevance.

It was speculated on this thread that perhaps she had died a few days before, but the fact that the creche staff confirmed & proved that she attended that day & was signed out by Kate at 5:30pm (along with the twins at 5:25pm) knocks that out of the water.
.

What about her book?

Kate’s signature is in the creche book for 3rd May as collected Madeleine at 17.30, but she says in her book that she actually went for a run that evening and met Gerry and the three kids in the restaurant at 17.30. She says they were already there when she got there,

loveall

DC Ivor Messiah take a statement from Luisa Todorov? She had nothing to say. Tzvetan Todorov was a literary theorist and historian of evil.

Spanish Eyes

I’ve often wondered why the parents via the fund, chose Oakley International to search for their daughter. Private detectives. The main man conned them of thousands and was found dead recently.

Honestly with all that money at their disposal they chose this outfit. Doesn’t sit right with me anyway.

https://www.joe.ie/news/irish-private-investigator-madeline-mccann-case-found-dead-612655

Kingp35

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

I think some posters have lost the run of themselves now, particularly over the photo. There's no evidence the photo was manipulated in any way.

I've said it before but I find it odd that some people are completely closed to the fact that it could have been anything other than an abduction. The balance of possibilities clearly lean towards it being an abduction however the lack of evidence in the case lends itself to other theories at least being possible. Some of the stuff being posted lately though is off the wall!

Plumbthedepths

SusieBlue wrote:

I never disagreed with that? I never said always? What's even your point here?

My point is even back then it was possible for a lay person to manipulate dating on a photo. Not outside the expertise of someone with basic PC knowledge. If you want responses from only certain people I suggest you create an ignore list.

retro:electro

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

Hard to know if this will ever be resolved. Hopefully someone someday will gain a conscience and crack. Pity there wasn’t more CCTV in the area at the time too.

loveall

I am more afraid by those that are too blind to see. Love All. Bye x

Boom_Bap

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

retro:electro wrote: »

Hard to know if this will ever be resolved. Hopefully someone someday will gain a conscience and crack. Pity there wasn’t more CCTV in the area at the time too.

I don't think that this will ever be resolved unless Maddy is recognised and all grown up or that there are remains found.


There has been too much involvement from different parties, 'evidence' passed around too much, too many inner fights, too many outer fights, too much media involvement.......too much of everything outside of proper detective work.


Now, I'm sure there has been good detective work, but it sounds like it's been compromised from the beginning from outside influence.

iamwhoiam

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

retro:electro wrote: »

Hard to know if this will ever be resolved. Hopefully someone someday will gain a conscience and crack. Pity there wasn’t more CCTV in the area at the time too.

There must be nothing worse than not knowing . I can't even begin to think what does to a mind .
So many cases of this here in Ireland too . Philip Cairns , Trevor Deeley and Fiona Pender , so so sad

retro:electro

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

Yeah I don’t think it’ll ever be solved through any investigations into what may have happened. It’s just all too compromised now. The only resolution would be for someone directly involved to come out and say what happened, but the chances of that occurring are slim. It’s just crazy to know that someone out there knows something and is saying nothing.

Steve F

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I don't think that this will ever be resolved unless Maddy is recognised and all grown up or that there are remains found.


There has been too much involvement from different parties, 'evidence' passed around too much, too many inner fights, too many outer fights, too much media involvement.......too much of everything outside of proper detective work.


Now, I'm sure there has been good detective work, but it sounds like it's been compromised from the beginning from outside influence.

Yes,it does have that feeling alright of just going around and around in circles

Steve F

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah I don’t think it’ll ever be solved through any investigations into what may have happened. It’s just all too compromised now. The only resolution would be for someone directly involved to come out and say what happened, but the chances of that occurring are slim. It’s just crazy to know that someone out there knows something and is saying nothing.

Yes crazy...you'd wonder how they sleep at nights?

the_pen_turner

Something Else

For what it's worth anyone could have a copy of Photoshop . Back around that time I was in college. Everyone I knew there had 20,000 euros worth of software that had been cracked or left unattended. Lots of it fully legal with codes and all.
If I could have it then a photographer would easily have it.

the_pen_turner

Something Else

Kingp35 wrote: »

I think some posters have lost the run of themselves now, particularly over the photo. There's no evidence the photo was manipulated in any way.

I've said it before but I find it odd that some people are completely closed to the fact that it could have been anything other than an abduction. The balance of possibilities clearly lean towards it being an abduction however the lack of evidence in the case lends itself to other theories at least being possible. Some of the stuff being posted lately though is off the wall!

The probability of an abduction is thousands of time less that a child falling and hurting themselves. People hurt themselves everyday.

gozunda

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

But they weren’t ignored? They were made suspects and then subsequently cleared because of a lack of evidence

You are wrong.

It is a fact that McCanns have never been cleared. The tabloid misinformation on the McCanns status was formally
corrected in February 2017 when Portuguese Judges declared that the archiving of the criminal case did not in fact equate to the McCanns being cleared of criminal responsibility.

In Portugal Kate remains an arguido. Bizarrely in the UK - the hugely expensive and ongoing police investigation has never formally interviewed either Kate or Gerry McCann ...

retro:electro

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

gozunda wrote: »

You are wrong.

It is a fact that McCanns have never been cleared. The tabloid misinformation on the McCanns status was formally
corrected in February 2017 when Portuguese Judges declared that the archiving of the criminal case did not in fact equate to the McCanns being cleared of criminal responsibility.

In Portugal Kate remains an arguido. Bizarrely in the UK - the hugely expensive and ongoing police investigation has never formally interviewed either Kate or Gerry McCann ...

No you’re wrong. Their arguido status was lifted in June 2008. What the courts actually state (and what the Mc Cann’s refute) is that the lifting of said status and archiving of the case does not automatically declare them innocent, or guilty.

Kingp35

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

the_pen_turner wrote: »

The probability of an abduction is thousands of time less that a child falling and hurting themselves. People hurt themselves everyday.

Except that it would not just be a child falling and hurting themselves, it would also include a cover up afterwards. You're being way too simplistic.

iamwhoiam

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

the_pen_turner wrote: »

The probability of an abduction is thousands of time less that a child falling and hurting themselves. People hurt themselves everyday.

Well yes they do but they don't dissappear into thin air then

Kidchameleon

bunderoon wrote: »

the fridge freezer and missing bag allows for the possibility for storage & removal.

I cannot find any proof of a fridge freezer missing. Can you provide any?

IngridM20 wrote: »

I am glad people are still talking about it, and by the looks of things, most are suspicious of these two monsters.

People are still talking about it thanks to the tireless work of those two "monsters"

limnam wrote: »

British police with holding statements from people who holiday'd with the McCanns - British Police the real heros.

Link please.

Mike9832 wrote: »

Gerry to this day still denies ever having that gear bag, photo evidence suggests he had

xalot wrote: »

There was a blue sports bag, now there isnt."

The fact that Gerry and Clarence Mitchell both deny this bag existed raises concerns for me.

No no no, Clarence Mitchell said that there is "no bag missing". The blue bag is there in the photo's for all to see, how can he deny it exists? Can you give us a link that proves Gerry and Mitchell said the bag does not exist?

limnam wrote: »

Was the device it was taken from ever provided to the police and verified?

I've never seen anything that it was

The very camera was available to the police. It can be seen on the table in the police photo's of the apartment.

limnam wrote: »

Ok so we've no evidence that the photograph/device/card was checked.

It was handed over to the Portuguese police. There is lots of information about that. There are lots of photos from that holiday that are not well known. I have seen them in Richard Hall's videos.

limnam wrote: »

why would she spend hundreds of thousands on con men?

Because they didn't know they were con men? Would they spend that money on them now?

gozunda wrote: »

In Portugal Kate remains an arguido.

She is not an arguido anymore. Arguido has not got an English translation but the closest phrase is "person of interest". Arguido does not mean suspect.

gozunda

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

No you’re wrong. Their arguido status was lifted in June 2008. What the courts actually state (and what the Mc Cann’s refute) is that the lifting of said status and archiving of the case does not automatically declare them innocent, or guilty.

Your bias is showing again I'm afraid ...

You made a statement in your comnent that they were cleared as follows

retro:electro wrote:

They were .... subsequently cleared because of a lack of evidence

That is completly incorrect ...

This is a translation of that ruling

It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.

That ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime.

The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

https://www.her.ie/news/court-rules-kate-gerry-mccann-not-proved-innocent-maddies-disappearance-332373

No it's you are clearly wrong. Look up the rulling if you dont believe it yourself.

As for the 'status' - the fact is that technically that's what they remain (persons of interest) because of the ruling above and refusal to answer questions posted by the Portuguese police. Don't quite get why you are setting yourself up as the expert on the McCann case when lots of what you think you know is completly incorrect.

retro:electro

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

Eh your link shows me nothing I haven’t already said. Their arguido status was lifted in 2008, courts have stated this does not mean they’re innocent. You said Kate is still an arguido. Do you read your own links? :rolleyes:

Next.

gozunda

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

Eh your own link shows me nothing I haven’t already said. Their arguido status was lifted in 2008, courts have stated this does not mean they’re innocent. You said Kate is still an arguido. Do you read your own links? :rolleyes:
Next.

Read what I wrote again. Your talent for ignoring that which is relevant is evident in your comments.

And repeat this is what you said:

retro:electro wrote:

They were ... subsequently cleared because of a lack of evidence

This is the ruling

It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

Notice the difference?

Your opinion is evidently incorrect based on the ruling. As to the arguido / suspect / person of interest - thats what they technically remain because of said ruling whether they were previously formally declared or otherwise ...

retro:electro

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

And you said Kate is still an arguido. So you’re one to come at me for splitting hairs when you’re spouting misinformation.

Their arguido status was lifted in 2018

Your own link says that. Lol.

Charmeleon

I think the situation is that the investigation has been halted so everyone with arguido status has had that lifted. If the investigation were to be re-opened their arguido status would be almost certainly invoked again. So it’s very different from being declared innocent or no longer suspects.

In ireland we don’t have an official status for suspects so in many cold cases suspects remain suspects. The same applies in this case but the arguido designation is only used for active investigations.

retro:electro

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

“It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

Yeah this just confirms my earlier statement. Their arguido status was lifted due to lack of evidence, but this does not prove their innocence.

gozunda

Something Else

retro:electro wrote: »

And you said Kate is still an arguido. So you’re one to come at me for splitting hairs when you’re spouting misinformation.Their arguido status was lifted in 2018
Your own link says that. Lol.

so you're now ignoring that your opinion on them being cleared is wrong?
Again...

It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."

Thats is the complete opposite of what you said earlier

"retro:electro wrote:

They were ...subsequently cleared because of a lack of evidence

Let me spell it out simply

THEY WERE NOT CLEARED ...

My point about them still technically being suspects / persons of interest (not formally) as there is no active investigation in Portugal, is based on that very ruling from 2017 which you are IGNORING for some strange reason ...