Madeleine McCann

cgcsb

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

A dog barking at a Teddy bear is somehow proof of what exactly?

The world's most respected cadaver dog trainer's dog. And independently the same man's blood dog.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

So you know for a fact that the "window scene" was staged? Have you told the cops because I don't think they have this information?

Nobody got in or out of that window;

- Window ledge is about 2m high above the pavement, unless spiderman abducted her or 2 men with a ladder that nobody saw.

-Blind and window only open from inside

- All 3 children slept soundly through abduction (this would be possible of Kate sedated them)

- Any abductor watching the apartment would observe an unlocked door and not bother with the window

-no shoe prints, hand prints finger prints glove marks etc. on the window ledge, frame or bed

-Curtains remained tucked in through this window invasion...really??

-only print on the window was one on the glass, belonging to Kate McCann and shaped to imply pressure applied in the 'open' direction

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

"Scent evidence" is not evidence. It is an animal barking in a room, nothing more. Nobody can be convicted in a court of law on the basis of a dog barking.

it's not sufficient to secure a conviction you mean, it is evidence however.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It's suspicious that the police found no evidence? So not only do the parents have to contend with inaccurate evidence, the fact that there is no evidence is proof of guilt in itself. That's a new one.

Nope, forensics not finding a whole cell (belonging to anybody) means it's likely the boot of the car was very thoroughly cleaned/bleached. All they found was DNA fragments.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

It's quite easy to explain if you think about it rationally for more than 10 seconds.

You child is missing;
The Portuguese police are trying to stitch you up for abduction/murder;
The British tabloids are trawling through your personal life and printing misleading and inaccurate stories which have no basis in fact i.e. that they drugged their children;
Reporters are known for hacking into people's voicemail and personal belongings;
You have lost all faith in the police investigation not least because they think you did it but are also leaking inaccurate information to the media about DNA and cadaver scent while you are at risk of prosecution if you speak about the case;
The lead police investigator is a formal suspect in another case of a missing child.
Having that information. why would the parents want to participate in their own witch hunt?

Nope. And whatever about rationality, you spent more than 10 seconds on that lol ...

Until August 2097 - the parents were not 'suspects' and were not "trying to stitch (them) up for abduction/murder" (sic). Of interest It was Kate who raised the issue of the children being sedated afaik fairly early on.

Unfortunately the parents courted the press from the night the child disappeared and reaped what the Tabloids are well known for. They did the exact same thing to the lead investigator if that was any solace.

What I do see from the night in question is multiple inexplicable and unexplained inconsistencies which neither the mccanns nor their friends have ever explained.

But there you go ...

iamwhoiam

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

dark crystal wrote: »

They were frantic, waking the twins would have been the least of their worries at the time!

How else was Kate supposed to raise the alarm without leaving the apartment?

Shout . Apparently according to Gerry it was like dining in the back garden



It wasn't by the way unless you had a very large garden with a large pool and two paths and a row of bushes

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

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

I honestly don't understand how posters on here cant see what is staring them in the face.

For me she was 100% abducted for what means we will never know.
The fact that the neighbour above the apartment saw a suspicious character acting very dodgy (closing the gate so quietly and carefully in the middle of the day) in around the McCanns apartment earlier that day in all likely hood he was doing some recon for his actions later.

Also the fact that the man (more than likely the recon man) carrying the Madeline lookalike towards the beach spotted by the Smiths has never come forward to rule himself out. This even after the unmissable worldwide media attention this got never mind if you were this man and had been holidaying in PdL innocently. No way anybody who had been in PdL around the time of the disappearance wouldn't have known about it.

This is the guy folks.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.



What do I think of the Kate and Gerry McCann? I think a fair chunk of blame for why their daughter was abducted lies at their feet for how they were carrying on as parents. From leaving their kids alone to go socializing, leaving doors unlocked on to a main street, lying to the police about checking on them more frequently than they probably were to look better parents, no baby monitor, being too tight to fork out for a babysitter even though they were both well paid individuals. But don't forget bar maybe the baby monitor all the rest of the tapas crew were engaging in similar sh!tty behavior but they got away it unlike the McCanns.

Were they sh!tty parents on this holiday, imo undoubtedly yes. Did they kill and mastermind the disappearance of her body in full view of the worlds media, imo no and they will have to live with their actions causing the abduction of their daughter for the rest of their lives.

Plumbthedepths

dark crystal wrote:

Did you see the bed? It actually has legs. There's room enough under there for a small child to go under it.

It's a 3 inch gap at best, it's a child you are talking about not a cat.

Necro

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

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

I honestly don't understand how posters on here cant see what is staring them in the face.

For me she was 100% abducted for what means we will never know.
The fact that the neighbour above the apartment saw a suspicious character acting very dodgy (closing the gate so quietly and carefully in the middle of the day) in around the McCanns apartment earlier that day in all likely hood he was doing some recon for his actions later.

Also the fact that the man (more than likely the recon man) carrying the Madeline lookalike towards the beach spotted by the Smiths has never come forward to rule himself out. This even after the unmissable worldwide media attention this got never mind if you were this man and had been holidaying in PdL innocently. No way anybody who had been in PdL around the time of the disappearance wouldn't have known about it.

This is the guy folks.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.



What do I think of the Kate and Gerry McCann? I think a fair chunk of blame for why their daughter was abducted lies at their feet for how they were carrying on as parents. From leaving their kids alone to go socializing, leaving doors unlocked on to a main street, lying to the police about checking on them more frequently than they probably were to look better parents, no baby monitor, being too tight to fork out for a babysitter even though they were both well paid individuals. But don't forget bar maybe the baby monitor all the rest of the tapas crew were engaging in similar sh!tty behavior but they got away it unlike the McCanns.

Were they sh!tty parents on this holiday, imo undoubtedly yes. Did they kill and mastermind the disappearance of her body in full view of the worlds media, imo no and they will have to live with their actions causing the abduction of their daughter for the rest of their lives.

I feel this way mostly too - BUT

the lies to the police give me slight pause for thought.

If it was my child abducted I wouldn't lie about anything, no matter how bad it made me look. I'd just want them found if at all possible.

And that's what the Mc Canns have done by telling white lies (or larger) here and there. Invited conspiracy theories and all associated thoughts down on top of them, and they don't deserve any sympathy for that as far as I'm concerned.

cgcsb

Something Else

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

I honestly don't understand how posters on here cant see what is staring them in the face.

For me she was 100% abducted for what means we will never know.
The fact that the neighbour above the apartment saw a suspicious character acting very dodgy (closing the gate so quietly and carefully in the middle of the day) in around the McCanns apartment earlier that day in all likely hood he was doing some recon for his actions later.

Also the fact that the man (more than likely the recon man) carrying the Madeline lookalike towards the beach spotted by the Smiths has never come forward to rule himself out. This even after the unmissable worldwide media attention this got never mind if you were this man and had been holidaying in PdL innocently. No way anybody who had been in PdL around the time of the disappearance wouldn't have known about it.

This is the guy folks.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.



What do I think of the Kate and Gerry McCann? I think a fair chunk of blame for why their daughter was abducted lies at their feet for how they were carrying on as parents. From leaving their kids alone to go socializing, leaving doors unlocked on to a main street, lying to the police about checking on them more frequently than they probably were to look better parents, no baby monitor, being too tight to fork out for a babysitter even though they were both well paid individuals. But don't forget bar maybe the baby monitor all the rest of the tapas crew were engaging in similar sh!tty behavior but they got away it unlike the McCanns.

Were they sh!tty parents on this holiday, imo undoubtedly yes. Did they kill and mastermind the disappearance of her body in full view of the worlds media, imo no and they will have to live with their actions causing the abduction of their daughter for the rest of their lives.

Do you believe that Kate McCann medicated the children?

Do you have a theory explaining the window?

pc7

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

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

Also the fact that the man (more than likely the recon man) carrying the Madeline lookalike towards the beach spotted by the Smiths has never come forward to rule himself out. This even after the unmissable worldwide media attention this got never mind if you were this man and had been holidaying in PdL innocently. No way anybody who had been in PdL around the time of the disappearance wouldn't have known about it.

was that not a gp who came forward later? or was that the Jane Tanner guy?

pc7

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

Was a reason given why the McCanns et al wouldn't be questioned by Scotland Yard (or am I imagining that?)

shamrock55

Something Else

If I walked into an apartment like Kate did and thought someone had just been there and taken my child I wouldn't be running out alerting other while at the same time leaving my other kids there, first thing I'd be doing is grabbing them and getting them the hell outta there

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

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

pc7 wrote: »

was that not a gp who came forward later? or was that the Jane Tanner guy?

Both those guys are the same.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

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

shamrock55 wrote: »

If I walked into an apartment like Kate did and thought someone had just been there and taken my child I wouldn't be running out alerting other while at the same time leaving my other kids there, first thing I'd be doing is grabbing them and getting them the hell outta there

Until it happens to you, which I hope it never will, you nor anyone on here will know how they will react in such circumstances.

Boom_Bap

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

cgcsb wrote: »

Do you believe that Kate McCann medicated the children?

Do you have a theory explaining the window?

No idea, but if someone went into a room with 3 kids and wanted to take one, I'm sure it wouldn't matter.


In relation to the window, there were the tapas 7 in and out of the room before the disappearance and god knows who after before the room was sealed off. Anyone could have been there testing their own theories.

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

Both those guys are the same.

Incorrect. Tanner claims she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15 roughly, Smith claims he saw a man heading to the beach carrying a child closer to 10pm.

pc7

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

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

Both those guys are the same.

Do you mean the Smith one too? or that the GP was the Jane Tanner one (she didn't see the person at the same time as Smith I think)

Something Else

I'm going to attempt to debunk the abduction theory one last time.

Most abductors don't go breaking into apartments to abduct a girl. Especially not an apartment that has 3 sleeping young kids. There is a huge chance that any one of the kids would wake up and cause a scene. There are much easier targets.

Also, 3 adults had been in the apartment in the space of about 50 minutes. Gerry was there at approximately 09:05pm, Matthew at 09:35pm and Kate at 10pm. They each would have spent a small bit of time inside the apartment. Also at this time, Jane Tanner had been out on the side street when she was checking on her kids. This is were she made the sighting, so that man had also been on the street. Gerry also spent time out on the street talking to a friend. Any abductor watching would surely be put off by all of this activity?

Also, how could any abductor be sure that the door was unlocked?

They would have had to have got into the apartment in a small window of time, find their way around in a dark, unfamiliar apartment, take Maddie and go out through the window with her. Or else they opened the window for some reason and went back out the door.

That seems very unlikely to me. They would have needed a great deal of luck to get the girl and not be noticed.

Scotland Yard investigated an abduction for years. They tracked down lots of people through cell phone data etc and never found a suspect.

On the other hand, it was the McCann's that shouted Abduction from the start. Kate ran down to the tapas bar screaming "They've taken her". Why did she assume this? Maybe Gerry or Matthew had opened the window and forgotten to close it. Its odd to immediately assume that she was abducted, before any search of the area had been done. And if she was abducted, why leave the 2 twins alone?

When the PJ investigate, it becomes clear that the window cannot be opened from outside.
The McCann's now change their story and say that the patio was open so thats most likely were the abductor came in. Why didn't they reveal this important information to the PJ beforehand? Why was only Kate's DNA found on that window.

The McCanns ring their family back home and tell them that the window had been shattered. It hadn't. Not at all. Maybe they wanted the abduction theory to catch on?

Then the dogs came in. 2 very well trained dogs. They detect the smell of death and blood in several locations in apartment 5A and the McCann's car. They searched other apartments and cars and didn't signal at all. DNA evidence is extremely complex. The evidence was inconclusive. Inconclusive evidence does not mean that no crime was committed. The dogs still picked up on those scents in that apartment and that car.

When you put all of this together, it becomes very difficult to just accept that she must have been taken.

pc7

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

Just to debunk your debunk (devils advocate)

Its not really difficult to break in if they didn't lock the door, if they'd been watching them they'd know it wasn't locked (they did the same thing every night).

What if one of the kids club people had given her something to make her sleepy (Kate said she was really tired after sailing).

We don't 'really' know if those checks were accurate in terms of who when to the room when.

Then for the alternate that the family did it, how in that time could they have done it and hidden it all so well.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

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

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Incorrect. Tanner claims she saw a man carrying a child at 9.15 roughly, Smith claims he saw a man heading to the beach carrying a child closer to 10pm.

You picked me up wrong. I said the Jane tanner guy and the gp who came forward are the same guy.

Boom_Bap

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

pc7 wrote: »

Just to debunk your debunk (devils advocate)

In this case, all debunks can be debunked

v638sg7k1a92bx

cgcsb wrote: »

The world's most respected cadaver dog trainer's dog. And independently the same man's blood dog.

Doesn't matter, it's equivalent to bringing in the world's most respected clairvoyant. It's still a dog barking at a teddy bear. Meaningless.

cgcsb wrote: »

Nobody got in or out of that window;

- Window ledge is about 2m high above the pavement, unless spiderman abducted her or 2 men with a ladder that nobody saw.

-Blind and window only open from inside

- All 3 children slept soundly through abduction (this would be possible of Kate sedated them)

- Any abductor watching the apartment would observe an unlocked door and not bother with the window

-no shoe prints, hand prints finger prints glove marks etc. on the window ledge, frame or bed

-Curtains remained tucked in through this window invasion...really??

-only print on the window was one on the glass, belonging to Kate McCann and shaped to imply pressure applied in the 'open' direction

Again, this is all meaningless. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

cgcsb wrote: »

it's not sufficient to secure a conviction you mean, it is evidence however.

It's unreliable, unscientific evidence that in no way proves that the girls was abducted, killed or the parents had anything to do with it.

cgcsb wrote: »

Nope, forensics not finding a whole cell (belonging to anybody) means it's likely the boot of the car was very thoroughly cleaned/bleached. All they found was DNA fragments.

If that were the case, bleaching and cleaning agents would be noticed. The most obvious answer is that there was no DNA.

shamrock55

Something Else

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

Until it happens to you, which I hope it never will, you nor anyone on here will know how they will react in such circumstances.

Sorry I strongly disagree, it's like being in a burning building, what's the first thing your gonna do if your house is on fire, are you gonna run out and scream to tell everyone your house is on fire or are you gonna go straight to your kids to get them out and away from danger, different scenarios I know but your instinct to protect your kids from danger is gonna kick in

Plumbthedepths

Has the reason why the UK police were only allowed investigate a possible abduction ever been explained? If I remember correctly a high ranking officer refused to get involved due to the constrictions?

cgcsb

Something Else

shamrock55 wrote: »

I know but your instinct to protect your kids from danger is gonna kick in

I think it's safe to say, this woman isn't the maternal type whether she's guilty or not.

Boom_Bap

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

cgcsb wrote: »

I think it's safe to say, this woman isn't the maternal type whether she's guilty or not.

That's a very unfair statement to make. You only know of her since the loss of her child and have no insight into her personal life.

v638sg7k1a92bx

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. And whatever about rationality, you spent more than 10 seconds on that lol ...

Like I said, more than 10 seconds.

gozunda wrote: »

Until August 2007 - the parents were not 'suspects' and the police were not "trying to stitch (them) up for abduction/murder" (sic).

The Portugese investigation in fact did not opine that they were suspected of either murder or abduction - rather it was concluded after the parents were made arguidos that (they believed) the parents tried to conceal an accidental death. This is well documented and in the official files btw.

In the first instance, parents, husbands, wives, spouses or significant others are always considered "suspects" in abduction/murders be it formally or informally.

gozunda wrote: »

Unfortunately the parents courted the press from the night the child disappeared and reaped what the Tabloids are well known for. They did the exact same thing to the lead investigator if that was any solace.

Why would they not use the media attention to highlight that their daughter has gone missing, would you not have done the same? Does this somehow make them guilty.

gozunda wrote: »

Of interest It was Kate who raised the issue of the children being sedated afaik fairly early on.

I don't know where you go this from, I have yet to see or hear the parents admit to sedating their children the night in question.

gozunda wrote: »

What I do see from the night in question is multiple inexplicable and unexplained inconsistencies which neither the mccanns nor their friends have ever explained.
But there you go ...

Like I said, if we brought you into a police station and questioned you about your whereabouts last night, I can guarantee that there would be inconsistencies in your story. This is perfectly normal and to be expected.

Nothing of what anyone has said here is proof that the parents were intentionally involved in their daughters disappearance.

Calltocall

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

pc7 wrote: »

was that not a gp who came forward later? or was that the Jane Tanner guy?

The GP came forward in relation to the Jane Tanner sighting, nobody has come forward in relation to the Smith Sighting.

cgcsb

Something Else

I'd love to see the the McCann's faces if the police announced they had recovered Madeline alive and well and were bringing her to them this very minute. Their faces would reveal quite a bit.

Plumbthedepths

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote:

Why would they not use the media attention to highlight that their daughter has gone missing, would you not have done the same? Does this somehow make them guilty.

They were advised not to by the Police. In my opinion if she were abducted ( which I don't believe) focusing attention on her eye condition made keeping her alive problematic.

cgcsb

Something Else

Boom_Bap wrote: »

That's a very unfair statement to make. You only know of her since the loss of her child and have no insight into her personal life.

We know that she went on holiday, left her kids in creche all day every day and abandoned them, unsupervised, in an unlocked apartment all night every night for the sake of saving a quid. My own parents are still horrified by that even though my mother remains convinced of Kate McCann's innocence purely based on the female perspective. A maternal woman of secure financial means would value her children's safety as being at least within the €100 price bracket.

cnocbui

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

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going to attempt to debunk the abduction theory one last time.

Most abductors don't go breaking into apartments to abduct a girl. Especially not an apartment that has 3 sleeping young kids. There is a huge chance that any one of the kids would wake up and cause a scene. There are much easier targets.

I think you don't actually know what you are talking about.

In the UK, a person opened the fromt door of a house, walked through to the bathroom where he grabbed a 6 year old girl from her bath, took her out of the house and bundled her into his car - drove away - raped her several times then dumped her naked in a snow covered back alley. All while her mother was in the kitchen.

Here is another one:

An evil sex fiend who kidnapped an eight-year-old girl and raped her in his garage has been sentenced to at least 89 years in jail.

Cody Riddle, 23, broke into the child's home, abducted her as she slept and then carried out the sick assault at his home nearby.

And another:

On Sunday, as her parents slept nearby, a 4-year-old Pennsylvania girl was taken from the family’s home by a stranger in the middle of the night and sexually assaulted, PEOPLE confirms.

The girl’s suspected assailant is now in custody.

Just stop pontificating about what most abductors would or wouldn't do as you don't actually have a clue.

Mike9832

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd love to see the the McCann's faces if the police announced they had recovered Madeline alive and well and were bringing her to them this very minute. Their faces would reveal quite a bit.

Probably the only way this case would be solved

Or say we have cctv of one of them dumping the body

The Portuguese would have got an answer either way if the McCanns didn't flee the country.

weldoninhio

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Doesn't matter, it's equivalent to bringing in the world's most respected clairvoyant. It's still a dog barking at a teddy bear. Meaningless.


Again, this is all meaningless. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



It's unreliable, unscientific evidence that in no way proves that the girls was abducted, killed or the parents had anything to do with it.




If that were the case, bleaching and cleaning agents would be noticed. The most obvious answer is that there was no DNA.

The dog actually barked at a closed cabinet. Unless the dog was a doggie clairvoyant how would they have known Madeleine's favourite toy (one that her mother apparently "cherished") would be fired into the bottom of a press when the worlds media wasn't on her.

cnocbui

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

pc7 wrote: »

Just to debunk your debunk (devils advocate)

Its not really difficult to break in if they didn't lock the door, if they'd been watching them they'd know it wasn't locked (they did the same thing every night).

What if one of the kids club people had given her something to make her sleepy (Kate said she was really tired after sailing).

We don't 'really' know if those checks were accurate in terms of who when to the room when.

Then for the alternate that the family did it, how in that time could they have done it and hidden it all so well.

I have spent most of my life in hot countries and can state with good authority that sun, sea, fun and a breeze are in combination, among the most powerful sedatives known to man.

Necro

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

Deleted User wrote: »

When the PJ investigate, it becomes clear that the window cannot be opened from outside.
The McCann's now change their story and say that the patio was open so thats most likely were the abductor came in. Why didn't they reveal this important information to the PJ beforehand? Why was only Kate's DNA found on that window.

The McCanns ring their family back home and tell them that the window had been shattered. It hadn't. Not at all. Maybe they wanted the abduction theory to catch on?

It's this stuff that makes me think there's more to this than just an abduction if I'm completely honest.

Why tell any lies at all if your child has been abducted?

I cannot fathom any reason why I'd want to mislead an investigation into it.

cgcsb

Something Else

cnocbui wrote: »

I think you don't actually know what you are talking about.

In the UK, a person opened the fromt door of a house, walked through to the bathroom where he grabbed a 6 year old girl from her bath, took her out of the house and bundled her into his car - drove away - raped her several times then dumped her naked in a snow covered back alley. All while her mother was in the kitchen.

The case you mention above was a high risk impulsive move by the peado that just happened to work. The perp risked himself being raped by the baseball bat of an angry father. He got lucky. The McCann case, if it was an abduction, was a precision operation. One which the largest peado ring in the region had no information about, even after the fact.

gozunda

Something Else

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Like I said, more than 10 seconds.

Indeed

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

...parents, husbands, wives, spouses or significant others are always considered "suspects" in abduction/murders be it formally or informally.

And yet the parents were not made arguidos until August 2007. And should they have been surprised when they were?

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Why would they not use the media attention to highlight that their daughter has gone missing, would you not have done the same? Does this somehow make them guilty.

Did I say that it did lol. Need to keep a hat on the old exaggeration there tbh. But if you lay down with dogs - you're likley to get up with fleas

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

don't know where you go this from, I have yet to see or hear the parents admit to sedating their children the night in question.

Read again . It has been detailed that Kate was concerned that someone (possibly) had sedated the twins and according to witness spent the night checking them because they would not wake up ...

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Like I said, if we brought you into a police station and questioned you about your whereabouts last night, I can guarantee that there would be inconsistencies in your story. This is perfectly normal and to be expected.

Granted and the follow up of that is veryifying those inconsistencies. That's what an investigation is. Unfortunately that never happened.

Tristen Hissing Typhoon wrote: »

Nothing of what anyone has said here is proof that the parents were intentionally involved in their daughters disappearance.

You do know this is a discussion yeah? Unfortunately there is littlec evidence to support any of the proposed scenarios. That's just how it is ...

Plumbthedepths

cnocbui wrote:

I have spent most of my life in hot countries and can state with good authority that sun, sea, fun and a breeze are in combination, among the most powerful sedatives known to man.

Kate herself suggested the children may have been sedated.

pc7

Something Else

pc7 wrote: »

Just to debunk your debunk (devils advocate)

Its not really difficult to break in if they didn't lock the door, if they'd been watching them they'd know it wasn't locked (they did the same thing every night).

What if one of the kids club people had given her something to make her sleepy (Kate said she was really tired after sailing).

We don't 'really' know if those checks were accurate in terms of who when to the room when.

Then for the alternate that the family did it, how in that time could they have done it and hidden it all so well.

I dunno, some doors automatically lock when you close it behind you. It would be very hard to tell just from looking at someone closing a door whether it was locked or still possible to open. You'd probably want to test it yourself, which I guess they could have done during the day.

Again though, they were only in PDL a few days. Nobody could have been watching them that closely that they'd understand all of their exact routines.

Steve F

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

Until it happens to you, which I hope it never will, you nor anyone on here will know how they will react in such circumstances.

I remember once when my twin daughters were younger my wife and I were out in a shopping centre with them.We didn't have them in the buggy because they were just at the transition stage from buggy to toddler holding hands with Mammy and Daddy or standing close to one of us.
We were distracted by something for less than 15 seconds and both were gone.
The frantic panic that consumed us for the 20-30 seconds it took us to find them will haunt me forever and still makes me break out in a cold sweat recalling it.
We found both of them hiding behind some clothes in a rack,snickering at the joke they had played
My initial reaction when I realized I couldn't see them were that they were "Gone" "Not there" "Missing"
Not like Kate "They've taken her/them"

Boom_Bap

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

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno, some doors automatically lock when you close it behind you. It would be very hard to tell just from looking at someone closing a door whether it was locked or still possible to open. You'd probably want to test it yourself, which I guess they could have done during the day.

Again though, they were only in PDL a few days. Nobody could have been watching them that closely that they'd understand all of their exact routines.

You'd be surprised, some sun holidays I've been on I've noticed people doing stuff the same time as us or you notice some people doing the same stuff.



We actually became friends with a couple and their kids because we were always in the same place at the same time.....so essentially we could predict their schedule as much as they could predict ours.

dark crystal

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

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's a 3 inch gap at best, it's a child you are talking about not a cat.

My point was in response to another poster saying that Kate lied about looking under the bed as it had a solid base, I posted the image as proof that there was a clear space under the bed. I'm sure she wasn't measuring the gap whilst searching for her child.

cgcsb

Something Else

Steve F wrote: »

I remember once when my twin daughters were younger my wife and I were out in a shopping centre with them.We didn't have them in the buggy because they were just at the transition stage from buggy to toddler holding hands with Mammy and Daddy or standing close to one of us.
We were distracted by something for less than 15 seconds and both were gone.
The frantic panic that consumed us for the 20-30 seconds it took us to find them will haunt me forever and still makes me break out in a cold sweat recalling it.
We found both of them hiding behind some clothes in a rack,snickering at the joke they had played
My initial reaction when I realized I couldn't see them were that they were "Gone" "Not there" "Missing"
Not like Kate "They've taken her/them"

Agreed. Surely any parent is not going to jump to the most horrifying conclusion imaginable, abduction.

The more realistic and less worrying scenario that she had wandered off on her own on foot and surely not gotten far.

She would however assume that she had been taken if she knew the child couldn't have walked away because she was heavily sedated.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

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

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

They were advised not to by the Police. In my opinion if she were abducted ( which I don't believe) focusing attention on her eye condition made keeping her alive problematic.

What are you trying to say here?
Are you trying to say that they released the information about her eye so she would be killed by her abductor?

Plumbthedepths

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote:

What are you trying to say here? Are you trying to say that they released the information about her eye so she would be killed by her abductor?

Firstly they were advised not go to the media. That's some jump you made there, so much so I'm not even going to address it.

gozunda

Something Else

cgcsb wrote: »

Agreed. Surely any parent is not going to jump to the most horrifying conclusion imaginable, abduction.

The more realistic and less worrying scenario that she had wandered off on her own on foot and surely not gotten far.

She would however assume that she had been taken if she knew the child couldn't have walked away because she was heavily sedated.

This from the PJ files - Investigative notes

...Several times, the McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focussing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple's opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat.

I think I would have been more receptive to the case for abduction had the parents not inexplicably pushed this over and beyond all other possible considerations. Even from the first moment where many parents would at least assume the child had gotten out of bed and wandered off - Kate was recorded as shouting "they're taken her".

I find it odd that the parents were in effect trying to push the police investigation in one direction only. That the police would become suspicious of this is in my opinion not at all inappropriate.

cgcsb

Something Else

gozunda wrote: »

This from the PJ files - Investigative notes



I think I would have been more receptive to the case for abduction had the parents not pushed inexplicably pushed this over and beyond all other possible considerations. Even from the first moment where many parents would at least assume the child had gotten out of bed and wandered off - Kate was recorded as shouting "they're taken her".

I find it odd that the parents were in effect trying to push the police investigation in one direction only. That the police would become suspicious of this is in my opinion was not at all inappropriate.

It's possible that Kate knew she hadn't wandered off because she had sedated the child, but the child was also abducted, as a matter of lucky coincidence for the abductor.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

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

shamrock55 wrote: »

Sorry I strongly disagree, it's like being in a burning building, what's the first thing your gonna do if your house is on fire, are you gonna run out and scream to tell everyone your house is on fire or are you gonna go straight to your kids to get them out and away from danger, different scenarios I know but your instinct to protect your kids from danger is gonna kick in

Like you said totally different scenarios and in no way comparable. One is an active situation, the fire the other is something that had already happened, the abduction. I'd say she was fairly sure the abductor had been and gone already seeing as she had quickly searched for and could find no sign of her daughter or the abductor when she realised Madeline had been taken.
I don't think any person would expect an abductor who had already taken one child to come back and take the other two with all the commotion Kate was creating, you know with all the howling and screaming she was making. It would kind go against how well the abductor had gotten away earlier.

gozunda

Something Else

Eileen Zealous Storefront wrote: »

What are you trying to say here?
Are you trying to say that they released the information about her eye so she would be killed by her abductor?

Nice twist but this is what was referred to ...

Carlos Anjos, president of the Association of Criminal Investigation Staff, criticised the McCanns, on 6 November, for creating a "monster of information" that hindered the investigation. He also stated that they should not have publicised the coloboma in her right eye which he claimed put the life of the girl at risk.

 This was echoed by Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, the Attorney General, who said that, if she had been abducted, the worldwide campaign would have turned Madeleine into a liability and that it was likely that her abductor had already killed her.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

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

cgcsb wrote: »

The case you mention above was a high risk impulsive move by the peado that just happened to work. The perp risked himself being raped by the baseball bat of an angry father. He got lucky. The McCann case, if it was an abduction, was a precision operation. One which the largest peado ring in the region had no information about, even after the fact.

Why is one just someone who got lucky with his abduction and the other a precision abduction when both so similar? Because it suits the narrative that Kate and Gerry had something to do with Madeline's disappearance.

weldoninhio

Something Else

gozunda wrote: »

Nice twist but this is what was referred to ...

Exactly, if a car thief robs a car and as he is driving around he hears reports about that make, model, reg car on all the radio stations. He's not gonna keep driving it around. He's gonna ditch it and burn it out.