PDA

View Full Version : mccanns case and censorship



saggymoon
06-30-2012, 12:04 AM
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=Tj1UvxIWnzk

right or wrong?

they also want a million pounds compensation on top!!

when parents of a missing child alledgedly abducted go after money, well, that rings alarm bells to me

brit1981
06-30-2012, 05:33 AM
In the UK you can say what you want about someone so long as it is true or comes under fair comment or is not defamatory.
If people choose to go around making accusations, then why should they not have to prove it. If their claims are true then there can be no censorship, they just go to court with their evidence and if it is true the court rules in their favour. If they have been telling a pack of lies then obviously the court will not rule in their favour. Why should people be able to make false accusations about people.
I have not heard of the mccanss demanding compensation for themselves. If someone falsly accused me of being involved in a crime I would take them to court too. I am fairly certain if someone suggested Amaral was involved in covering up the abductions because he was involved in criminal activity, he would quite rightly sue for libel too. If Amarel has written things about the McCansn that are not true (I also heard he claimed a child's body had been found in the Jersey care home, but not sure if that is correct), then every single profit he makes should go to the McCanns or the find madeleine fund. Why should an ex-detective with a criminal record for giving false evidence be able to profit by lying about people and falsly accusing them?
If someone leafleted your street with leaflets falsly suggesting you were a criminal would you be happy?

brit1981
06-30-2012, 10:42 AM
Amaral has sued people for defamation, when he was accused of being involved in the torture of the mother of Joana Cipriano. So when he sues people for defamation it is OK, when others sue him it is censorhsip

saggymoon
06-30-2012, 03:55 PM
Perhaps you need to read up a bit. The mccanns are suing mr amaral for 1.2m quid for causing distress.

Censorship refers to, obviouslyyou didnt watch the video, banning his book which detailed the facts in the case. They got a temporary ban which was overturned and held up by the highest court. And good. Last I heard it was the nazis burning books.

As for him suing for defamation, it was true that he was defamed because that awful woman and her stupid lawyer said mr amaral tortured her and was there and egged others on. Its a fact he was never there so yes its libel. Mr Amaral and others in the police cant be sued for defamation if they in their police investigation came to conclusions that madeleine had died. Its really that simple. And I do foresee the mccanns losing the case lime every other one they have instigated all courtesy of the madeleine fund.

brit1981
06-30-2012, 04:23 PM
As far as I am aware Amaral has not written the book as part of his policewor, but as an individuel. And if he has made defamatory statements that are either not fair comment or he cannot prove then of course he should be sued for libel.
Anf if people do not want to sell his book then why should they be forced to sell it?

And what libel cases have the mccanns lost. They took Bennett to caught, and he was unable to prove his statements depsite claiming they were true and was banned from publishing them. Now he is facing a possible prison sentence not the McCanns. If it is not libel then why does he not show the evidence he has that it is true? The newspapers had to pay out and print front page apologies. It is amazing that considering so many people like bennett and Butler claim their statements are true, so far not one of these statements has been held up as true in court.

And the ban being overturned has nothing to do with it being libelous or not. The courts said he had free speech so the book could not be banned. But this was not saying his statements were true or he could not be held liable - it was a "on his head be it" ruling i.e he can publish the book but if it turns out he had libeled someone then he is liable for it. If he can sue others for defamining him, then he cannot claim others should be denied that right. It is actually better for the Mccann case that he has sued Cipriano's lawyer, because now he cannot bleat that sueing for defamation is censorship when he gets taken to court. He has removed that defense for himself now.

saggymoon
06-30-2012, 05:05 PM
oh and for the record mr amaral was not writing as an individual he was writing about the conclusions of the whole police force who concluded before he was sacked off the case that madeleine had died and it was a cover up, so lessof the demonising one man its so frankly boring and untrue

we also know the mccanns paid their detectives to dig up dirt on amaral, nice priorities for the parents of a missing child who did not cooperate with police and refused to answer questions


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

enjoy

brit1981
06-30-2012, 07:31 PM
So you think the book has been written and published by the PJ, and not by Amaral as an individuel? Even thought the Portuguese version of the CPS said there was no evidence against either Murat or the parents?
And considering Amaral has a criminal conviction for lying about evidence in a case relating to a missing child he does not really need any one else to demonize him.

saggymoon
06-30-2012, 08:01 PM
No the judge did not say that. And the PJ have never come forward and put their name to the book, and it is being published solely under Amaral's name. That is why Amaral can be taken to court for libel.

<modsnip>
nothing todo with mr amaral, was his team and the team that

worked with british detectives too

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

<modsnip>

brit1981
06-30-2012, 08:38 PM
<modsnip>
nothing todo with mr amaral, was his team and the team that

worked with british detectives too

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

<modsnip>

I really do not mean to be rude, but I am not certain what you mean to say? Are you saying the book is nothing to do with Amaral, and it is written by the PJ and British police? If that is the case why are the courts allowing Amaral to be sued for libel?

imamaze
06-30-2012, 09:25 PM
We have a detailed, formal Terms of Service (TOS) posted separately, and that TOS is what you will be held to as a member here. It's long and detailed because it has to be in the world we live in, and you are expected to read it, understand it and abide by it. However, we can sum it up as follows:

1) Be a decent human being;
2) Treat your fellow posters as the decent human beings they are;
3) Keep in mind that whatever you post will likely live on forever, so think before you press "Submit Reply".
4) It's a big world. People will disagree with you. You will disagree with them. This can be done with respect, and that's what we expect.

saggymoon
07-12-2012, 01:11 PM
I really do not mean to be rude, but I am not certain what you mean to say? Are you saying the book is nothing to do with Amaral, and it is written by the PJ and British police? If that is the case why are the courts allowing Amaral to be sued for libel?

There is a myth going around that Mr Amaral and him alpne has come up with the accidental death and concealment theory when this just is not true. Its an attempt to scapegoat him when in fact the whole of the portuguese police dept involved came to that conclusion.

the courts allow writs to be issued. normally after an application the trial goes ahead. Courts do not decide to accept or decline writs based on what they think the outcome might be or the merits of any case.

Seeing as the supreme court in portugal has overturned the ban of his book, I dont see the libel trial as having a foot to stand on. Still, I guess the Mccanns hope all the money they have used from the fund to which people donated to find Madeleine but used to litigate against several people, will earn them a million. lets see hey?
Catch you later.

brit1981
07-13-2012, 05:11 AM
There is a myth going around that Mr Amaral and him alpne has come up with the accidental death and concealment theory when this just is not true. Its an attempt to scapegoat him when in fact the whole of the portuguese police dept involved came to that conclusion.

the courts allow writs to be issued. normally after an application the trial goes ahead. Courts do not decide to accept or decline writs based on what they think the outcome might be or the merits of any case.

Seeing as the supreme court in portugal has overturned the ban of his book, I dont see the libel trial as having a foot to stand on. Still, I guess the Mccanns hope all the money they have used from the fund to which people donated to find Madeleine but used to litigate against several people, will earn them a million. lets see hey?
Catch you later.

The overturning of the ban on the book has no influence on the libel trial. If amaral has made any assertions about anyone in his book that he cannot prove and are defamatory then he is committing libel. He could try the defence of fair comment and claim it is his opinion, but this is unlikely to work as accusing someone of a crime and tagging on a "in my opinion" or "this is just a theory" is unlikely to come under fair comment.

In the UK, courts can reject cases on the basis of no merit or no case to answer. This is something Tony Bennett is well acquinted with as he has had his attempts to prosecute individuels thrown out at least twice.

Also for their work with the mccanns, carter -ruck have worked on a no-win no fee basis. In the UK this works by the clients not paying anything at all, but if they win the losing party pays the lawyer fees.

saggymoon
07-13-2012, 06:25 AM
The overturning of the ban on the book has no influence on the libel trial. If amaral has made any assertions about anyone in his book that he cannot prove and are defamatory then he is committing libel. He could try the defence of fair comment and claim it is his opinion, but this is unlikely to work as accusing someone of a crime and tagging on a "in my opinion" or "this is just a theory" is unlikely to come under fair comment.

In the UK, courts can reject cases on the basis of no merit or no case to answer. This is something Tony Bennett is well acquinted with as he has had his attempts to prosecute individuels thrown out at least twice.

Also for their work with the mccanns, carter -ruck have worked on a no-win no fee basis. In the UK this works by the clients not paying anything at all, but if they win the losing party pays the lawyer fees.

Who mentioned carter ruck? They have nothing to do with this at all. It remains a fact, borne out by their published accounts, that the fund has been used to sue people in Portugal. Fact.

As to libel, police forces cannot be sued for doing their jobs and reaching certain conclusions. Supreme court ruled the book was nothing but a replication of the facts in the case, so, yes, no leg to stand on.

brit1981
07-13-2012, 07:31 AM
He wrote the book as an individuel, not as a police report. he is protected in the police, although he can (and has been) be prosecuted for lying even in the course of police work. The supreme court did not rule the book was a replication of the facts. But we will have to see what the libel trial states. If Amaral is able to prove every single one of his defamatory statements then he is OK, if not then is has committed libel.
remember bennetts books were banned because he could not prove its statements.

saggymoon
07-13-2012, 07:34 AM
He wrote the book as an individuel, not as a police report. he is protected in the police, although he can (and has been) be prosecuted for lying even in the course of police work. The supreme court did not rule the book was a replication of the facts. But we will have to see what the libel trial states. If Amaral is able to prove every single one of his defamatory statements then he is OK, if not then is has committed libel.
remember bennetts books were banned because he could not prove its statements.
The court certainly DID rule it was a replication of the police files. Seems you have decided ahead of the courts that any statement made was defamatory. Are you a judge? Lol

saggymoon
07-13-2012, 02:07 PM
for perusal, the appeal court judgement on Dr Amaral's book

And to prove what i said was true

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

brit1981
07-18-2012, 10:27 AM
The Lisbon court of appeal, said their ruling was not a ruling on the factuality of his claims, nor was it a defamation or libel trial. they ruled that to ban the book at that stage would go against freedom of expression. However, a libel trial can, and is, going ahead. If Amaral loses the libel cases, there is a possibility that the book may be banned again as this time the court will have to take into account the fact that another court has rules the book libelous. At the appeal trial the book had obviously not been ruled libelous so the court could not make a judgement on whether or not it was true. If the book is ruled libelous it will also mean anyone who publishes or reproduces the book, or part, thereof, will be liable to libel charges too.

Incidently Amaral has lost a libel case he took to court, and has been ordered to pay not only the defence fees, but the court fees as well.

SapphireSteel
07-18-2012, 07:00 PM
The Lisbon court of appeal, said their ruling was not a ruling on the factuality of his claims, nor was it a defamation or libel trial. they ruled that to ban the book at that stage would go against freedom of expression. However, a libel trial can, and is, going ahead. If Amaral loses the libel cases, there is a possibility that the book may be banned again as this time the court will have to take into account the fact that another court has rules the book libelous. At the appeal trial the book had obviously not been ruled libelous so the court could not make a judgement on whether or not it was true. If the book is ruled libelous it will also mean anyone who publishes or reproduces the book, or part, thereof, will be liable to libel charges too.

Incidently Amaral has lost a libel case he took to court, and has been ordered to pay not only the defence fees, but the court fees as well.

I fail to see how a dry, factual book written by a senior detective who actually RAN an investigation can be considered libellous.

What we have here is attempted censorship, no more, no less...and it has FAILED. The book is out there. Truth will almost always come out.

gord
07-19-2012, 02:49 AM
Amaral wouldnt know what the TRUTh was if it came up and bit him the bum.

This is a policeman who was convicted of falsifying evidence - he has a suspended sentence . He was sacked from the original investigation for completely cocking up - he has other trials to face Is he complicent in the torture case ? - well let the portugese sytem run its course.

The book is not banned in the UK or America - publishers are perfectly entitled to print and retailers sell it.

hats of to the Mcanns for standing up to the lies and innuendos that have followed them - most people would have wilted .

One day in this case we might find out what happened - how it happened and who took Madeleine - but it sure aint coming from the mouth of Amaral

SapphireSteel
07-19-2012, 04:04 AM
It remains a fact that Amaral and his team were originally investigating Madeleine's disappearance as an abduction.'

It was British police who developed the evidence implicating the McCanns.

brit1981
07-19-2012, 04:11 AM
Actually saphhire it is up to the courts to decide if it was fact or not, and that case is not until October. At this point no court has made any claim as to its factuality. If you have any other evidence it is a factual book, contact the defence and act as a witness in the trial. It is also not banned in the UK, so people could publish it if they wanted.

Apparently in the book Amaral claims a body was found in the Jersey care home, which is not true. he is also a convicted criminal, and has a conviction for falsifying evidence in a criminal case. he is also facing another criminal trial for assault, and is being chased by the tax man. Interestingly his former co-accused who worked with him on several cases, is now faces charges (might have been convicted), for blackmail.

It is misleading to state the british police developed the evidence against the mccanns. They provided the fss and the dog searches which the PJ incorrectly thought was evidence against the mccanns. At this time the british police were not actively investigating the case. The British police now working on the case have come out and said they believe it was an abudction.

SapphireSteel
07-19-2012, 04:33 AM
Actually saphhire it is up to the courts to decide if it was fact or not, and that case is not until October. At this point no court has made any claim as to its factuality. If you have any other evidence it is a factual book, contact the defence and act as a witness in the trial. It is also not banned in the UK, so people could publish it if they wanted.

Apparently in the book Amaral claims a body was found in the Jersey care home, which is not true. he is also a convicted criminal, and has a conviction for falsifying evidence in a criminal case. he is also facing another criminal trial for assault, and is being chased by the tax man. Interestingly his former co-accused who worked with him on several cases, is now faces charges (might have been convicted), for blackmail.

It is misleading to state the british police developed the evidence against the mccanns. They provided the fss and the dog searches which the PJ incorrectly thought was evidence against the mccanns. At this time the british police were not actively investigating the case. The British police now working on the case have come out and said they believe it was an abudction.

It was not I that stated it. It was the British Ambassador to the US.

gord
07-20-2012, 09:33 AM
for goodness sake this is just semantics - Police forces across the world cooperate - This case was and still is a portugese case . Of course the british police would help in anyway and they did - they helped look at the DNA evidence and then gave it back to the PJ - what is so startling about that ? It would be entirely natural to treat everyone as suspects and the parents would be the first up. But that it is why in a modern democracy you dont just declare people guilty because they look dodgy or you think they are. Youy need cast iron evidence that will be held up in court . The mccaans were never charged with any crime - the evidence wasnt there - they were not charged in Portugal , they were not charged with anything in Britain either.

So not sure what the point is on this -

SapphireSteel
11-19-2012, 06:22 PM
for goodness sake this is just semantics - Police forces across the world cooperate - This case was and still is a portugese case . Of course the british police would help in anyway and they did - they helped look at the DNA evidence and then gave it back to the PJ - what is so startling about that ? It would be entirely natural to treat everyone as suspects and the parents would be the first up. But that it is why in a modern democracy you dont just declare people guilty because they look dodgy or you think they are. Youy need cast iron evidence that will be held up in court . The mccaans were never charged with any crime - the evidence wasnt there - they were not charged in Portugal , they were not charged with anything in Britain either.

So not sure what the point is on this -

This is a wildly inaccurate statement to make.

The evidence was and is there. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now have PROOF of this, in black and white.

The evidence includes Madeleine's DNA, and cadaverine.

The British Police were the ones who first developed this evidence, and supplied the dogs.

The British government were the ones who then did a back flip, and applied undue pressure to their own and the Portugese investigation, along with the US government.

What remains unclear is WHY. Embarrasment would be my guess...and a wish for it all to go away.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id353.html

gord
11-20-2012, 04:48 AM
This is a wildly inaccurate statement to make.

The evidence was and is there. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now have PROOF of this, in black and white.

The evidence includes Madeleine's DNA, and cadaverine.

The British Police were the ones who first developed this evidence, and supplied the dogs.

The British government were the ones who then did a back flip, and applied undue pressure to their own and the Portugese investigation, along with the US government.

What remains unclear is WHY. Embarrasment would be my guess...and a wish for it all to go away.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id353.html

I am really staggered sometimes by your statements my post above was not widly unaccurate -

1. The mccaans were never charged by anyone ??

2 The police from the UK assisted with case - normal but it was always a portugese case

3 there was no conclusive evidence found either way on what happened to madeleine .


Your continued claims that this was a cover up by the US and British goverment somehow instructed the Portugese Police to shut down the case is ludicrous - and that is also my opinion of course

SapphireSteel
11-20-2012, 05:13 AM
I am really staggered sometimes by your statements my post above was not widly unaccurate -

1. The mccaans were never charged by anyone ??

They should have been. For neglect, at least. My opinion only of course.



2 The police from the UK assisted with case - normal but it was always a portugese case
3 there was no conclusive evidence found either way on what happened to madeleine .

Just an enormous mountain of circumstantial and forensic evidence, plus the instinct and belief of both the British and Portugese Police.

:waitasec:


Your continued claims that this was a cover up by the US and British goverment somehow instructed the Portugese Police to shut down the case is ludicrous - and that is also my opinion of course

:lol:

I think it is ludicrous to deny that cover-ups and conspiracies happen, knowing what we know about the shenanigans surrounding Hillsborough, for example.

We also know that the McCanns called in friends at very high levels from Day one, in the form of Gordon Brown and his boss, Tony Blair.

There is proof that they called in politcal interference and attempted to steer the investigation from the get go. They have attempted censorship. They have profiteered from their daughter's disappearance.

They never looked for her.

I actually think it's ludicrous they aren't in jail, and that any one at all is naive enough to believe they are innocent too, but that's just me.

:seeya:

:cow:

:sick:

gord
11-20-2012, 10:43 AM
I think it is ludicrous to deny that cover-ups and conspiracies happen, knowing what we know about the shenanigans surrounding Hillsborough, for example.

We also know that the McCanns called in friends at very high levels from Day one, in the form of Gordon Brown and his boss, Tony Blair.

There is proof that they called in politcal interference and attempted to steer the investigation from the get go. They have attempted censorship. They have profiteered from their daughter's disappearance.

They never looked for her.

I actually think it's ludicrous they aren't in jail, and that any one at all is naive enough to believe they are innocent too, but that's just me.




sorry but just because cover ups have happened in the past in other areas doea not make this case any more likely to be a cover up or not.

What you are claiming is that the prime minister and Chancellor of the UK knowingly instructed the police , and FSS to cover up the death / disposal of a young girl. ?? Not only that this would have to include portugese goverment at a high level as this was a portugese case, Not only this but in past posts you have also claimed the US ambassador was also involved in this cover up ???

Do have this correct ? if I dont please let me know exactky what you are claiming

SapphireSteel
11-20-2012, 04:44 PM
I think it is ludicrous to deny that cover-ups and conspiracies happen, knowing what we know about the shenanigans surrounding Hillsborough, for example.

We also know that the McCanns called in friends at very high levels from Day one, in the form of Gordon Brown and his boss, Tony Blair.

There is proof that they called in politcal interference and attempted to steer the investigation from the get go. They have attempted censorship. They have profiteered from their daughter's disappearance.

They never looked for her.

I actually think it's ludicrous they aren't in jail, and that any one at all is naive enough to believe they are innocent too, but that's just me.




sorry but just because cover ups have happened in the past in other areas doea not make this case any more likely to be a cover up or not.

What you are claiming is that the prime minister and Chancellor of the UK knowingly instructed the police , and FSS to cover up the death / disposal of a young girl. ?? Not only that this would have to include portugese goverment at a high level as this was a portugese case, Not only this but in past posts you have also claimed the US ambassador was also involved in this cover up ???

Do have this correct ? if I dont please let me know exactky what you are claiming


Yes you have it 100% correct.

:cow:

Clutchbag
11-20-2012, 08:03 PM
its not beyond the realms of probability that thebritish govt covered up two nhs doctors for their shameful acts at best murder at worst, this country covers up all sorts of evil acts, fact im afraid witness saville case jerseycase wakes chikdrens home and others, we have innocents being arrestesd, the victims laughed at while the real onesget away

SapphireSteel
11-20-2012, 08:24 PM
All Governments indulge in cover ups, both big and small.

It is part of being a government.

It is called "politics".

If folk got a grip and actually thought about it, they are essentially defending the honour of a bunch of politicians.

Like politicians never lie. :lol:

We know that this is categorically untrue. They lie all the time, on every level. Big ones, little ones, white ones, bald faced ones.

Why the insistence that in this case above all others, there is complete truth, transparency and decorum, a complete lack of deception or self-interest or boys club agreements, from a bunch of politicians?

It is just farcical really. Some politicians told me so, it must be true. I thought that sort of thinking went out with Hitler.

:banghead:

:cry:

gord
11-21-2012, 04:07 AM
I have heard a lot of crazy things in this case but now accusing a chancellor a prime minister and a US ambassador to pervert the course of justice by shutting down a murder/ manslaughter trial in a foreign country - for what motive ?? This would be a serious criminal act and is just not credible in fact it is rediculous -

Politicians in this countery are going to jail for fiddling expenses yet we are suppose to suspend belief that they woould commit criminal acts to protect to middle class NHS doctors ?? - but also include the US

No evidence , nothing to suggest this - if this is the esttent of sleuthing that we are now at ?

If it wasnt such a serious case ity would be hilarious

SapphireSteel
11-21-2012, 04:46 AM
I have heard a lot of crazy things in this case but now accusing a chancellor a prime minister and a US ambassador to pervert the course of justice by shutting down a murder/ manslaughter trial in a foreign country - for what motive ?? This would be a serious criminal act and is just not credible in fact it is rediculous -

Politicians in this countery are going to jail for fiddling expenses yet we are suppose to suspend belief that they woould commit criminal acts to protect to middle class NHS doctors ?? - but also include the US

No evidence , nothing to suggest this - if this is the esttent of sleuthing that we are now at ?

If it wasnt such a serious case ity would be hilarious

I have posted and reposted proof of the US involvement and that it was the British police who developed the evidence against the McCanns, since evaporated. (wikileaks).

Just because you find it impossible to believe, does not mean that it cannot happen. There are plenty of examples of nepotism, favoritism, international political pressures, diplomatic pressures, secret handshakes, the Establishment taking care of its own, littering the halls of "justice" in the UK.

I don't see why the McCann case is exempt from the same lack of transparency and general shadiness as say, the butt covering that ensued around Hillsborough, or the murky goings on around the Charles and Di debacle.

You say "why would they risk criminal charges?" Why would who risk criminal charges? If the word comes from above to drop the investigation, there are no criminal charges to be had. The police are hardly going to investigate their own bosses for telling them to drop a case, are they?. Every employee I know does what their boss tells them, including detectives in the British and Portugese police forces.

There was one brave detective that protested, and we all know what happened to him. He was drummed out of his career and thoroughly smeared, then subjected to years of legal actions besides.

:banghead:

:cow:

gord
11-21-2012, 09:54 AM
I have posted and reposted proof of the US involvement and that it was the British police who developed the evidence against the McCanns, since evaporated. (wikileaks).

Just because you find it impossible to believe, does not mean that it cannot happen. There are plenty of examples of nepotism, favoritism, international political pressures, diplomatic pressures, secret handshakes, the Establishment taking care of its own, littering the halls of "justice" in the UK.

I don't see why the McCann case is exempt from the same lack of transparency and general shadiness as say, the butt covering that ensued around Hillsborough, or the murky goings on around the Charles and Di debacle.

You say "why would they risk criminal charges?" Why would who risk criminal charges? If the word comes from above to drop the investigation, there are no criminal charges to be had. The police are hardly going to investigate their own bosses for telling them to drop a case, are they?. Every employee I know does what their boss tells them, including detectives in the British and Portugese police forces.

There was one brave detective that protested, and we all know what happened to him. He was drummed out of his career and thoroughly smeared, then subjected to years of legal actions besides.

:banghead:

:cow:

An email exchange between two ambasadors is not proof of anything except they exchanged an email - how does that suddenly become proof of US involvement in closing the case down ?

Again the UK police helped the PJ in the case - that is normal cooperation - how does that suddenly become proof that they closed the case down ?

teh rest of your posts about the PM and Chancellor ..well just does not have any basis on anything factual apart from your own imagination. Quoting MOO all the time doesnt make it correct

brit1981
11-21-2012, 10:27 AM
There has not been one shred of proof from wikilieaks or anyone else this was any sort of a cover -up. All the wikileaks cable said was that at the time of them being made aguidos the UK ambassador belived it was the UK police who developed the evidence being used against the McCanns. Not once was there mention of a cover -up. And as the evidence against the mccanns turned out to be DNA results which had been misunderstood by the PJ and the dog alerts, which accoridng to the AG final report did not pan out in the end, there is nothign suspicious about it. We all know from the PJ files that the UK police assisted in this case, and helped arrange the aid from Grime and the FSS, it was hardly a secret.

It is normal, at least in the EU, for police forces to co-operate if there is a foreign element, and the FSS took work from overseas cases routinely. I have heard of american cases where material was sent to european countries for further analysis. In the UK the police regularly assist other countries if there is a UK connection - for instance when two UK nationals were victims fo a crime in the caribbean, UK police assisted.
madeleine's dna was never found, all was found was material that either she, her parents, her grandparents, her siblings, her other relatives more thna likely contributed - in fact as all the others were witnessed using the car, it makes it more likely it came from them. It is just basic inheritance that any sisteen year old would be taught.

Does anyone actually have any proof that the british police developed evidence other than the dna results and the dog?
Does anyone have any proof that madeleine contributed to the dna found, and that this material came from he rbody rather than transferance from her belongings?
Does anyone have any proof that the dogs do not alert to bodily fluids from living people, and that their alerts are 100% proof of a body which belonged to madeleine mccann, and was placed there by her parents?
So far not one person has actually been able to demonstrate any of this.

Going back to the mccanns and censorship, I see that ten thousand twitter users are now facing legal action for libel as well as exposure, for falslynaming, (and implying, and linking to sites that do the same) a person as a peadophile without a shred of evidence other than gossip and things they had read. So it is not just the mccanns who think they have the right not to have falsities spread about them on the internet.

Gem2626
11-21-2012, 10:48 AM
I have posted and reposted proof of the US involvement and that it was the British police who developed the evidence against the McCanns, since evaporated. (wikileaks).

Just because you find it impossible to believe, does not mean that it cannot happen. There are plenty of examples of nepotism, favoritism, international political pressures, diplomatic pressures, secret handshakes, the Establishment taking care of its own, littering the halls of "justice" in the UK.

I don't see why the McCann case is exempt from the same lack of transparency and general shadiness as say, the butt covering that ensued around Hillsborough, or the murky goings on around the Charles and Di debacle.

You say "why would they risk criminal charges?" Why would who risk criminal charges? If the word comes from above to drop the investigation, there are no criminal charges to be had. The police are hardly going to investigate their own bosses for telling them to drop a case, are they?. Every employee I know does what their boss tells them, including detectives in the British and Portugese police forces.

There was one brave detective that protested, and we all know what happened to him. He was drummed out of his career and thoroughly smeared, then subjected to years of legal actions besides.

:banghead:

:cow:


This 'brave' detective was convicted of perjury in another missing child case. Other detectives in the team beat a woman up. There is nothing 'brave' about men hitting women or police hitting anyone.
Other people have come forward saying that they were too beaten up by this same police force. Whether their claims are true or not I don't know but knowing the past behaviour of this police force it could quite well be true.

IMO the only reason didn't fall foul to the PJ's usual tactics is because they're English and they wouldn't get away with it.

I don't understand how the past behaviours of the PJ and their failings in the investigation can be ignored when there is proof yet there is no proof of any cover up by the UK but this can be explained with 'well it does happen'.

SapphireSteel
11-21-2012, 07:14 PM
This 'brave' detective was convicted of perjury in another missing child case. Other detectives in the team beat a woman up. There is nothing 'brave' about men hitting women or police hitting anyone.
Other people have come forward saying that they were too beaten up by this same police force. Whether their claims are true or not I don't know but knowing the past behaviour of this police force it could quite well be true.

IMO the only reason didn't fall foul to the PJ's usual tactics is because they're English and they wouldn't get away with it.

I don't understand how the past behaviours of the PJ and their failings in the investigation can be ignored when there is proof yet there is no proof of any cover up by the UK but this can be explained with 'well it does happen'.

The absence of proof cuts both ways.

For example, there is no proof whatsoever of an abductor. None.

After all the money, all the years, all the "investigations" and searches, Madeleine is still just as missing as she was the day her parents left her to fend for herself and her baby brother and sister, in a strange apartment, in a strange country.

The proof we do have is -

proof of lying, proof of governmental interference, proof of a "wider agenda", proof of high stakes (money), proof of a dead body belonging to a child of the McCanns being in 5a, on Kates clothing, and in the Renault they hired 25 days later. We have proof Gerry carried her to the beach at 21.55. We have proof the lied about the window shutters, the calpol, the David Payne visit. We have proof that the British Police first developed evidence against the McCanns, and proof the US Ambassador had discussed the case.

But somehow, all of this proof is less compelling than the absence of proof of a cover up to the McCann supporter.

:waitasec:

:dunno:

Clutchbag
11-22-2012, 05:54 PM
i think this little snippet I came across belongs in this thread

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/mzungu/2009/New%20photos%20for%202012/image0-2.jpg

Gem2626
11-22-2012, 06:17 PM
i think this little snippet I came across belongs in this thread

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13/mzungu/2009/New%20photos%20for%202012/image0-2.jpg

I don't understand. What is this meant to prove? That someone shares the same opinion?

Gem2626
11-22-2012, 06:30 PM
We have the sighting (such as it is) of Tanner, who saw Madeleine being carried away.

We have the sighting of the Smith Family, who unquestionably saw the same thing.

The difference is, the Smith Family later identified Gerry McCann, and Tanners sighting is clearly falsified.


UK police communication re: Martin Smith's sighting, 20 September 2007
Processos Vol XIII
Pages 3996 3997 (in English)
Email from John Hughes to DIC Portimao, C.C. to Stuart Prior
20th September 2007
Subject: Fwd Smith family
From Lindsay Long to John Hughes
20th September 2007

Re Smith family

Location : Portugal Out of Force Area

Origin: Mr Martin Smith Ireland.

Text: Reported that he had passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th May and returned to UK. Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 PM news on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing . He also watched ITV news and Sky news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children.

Is asking a member of OP task ring him back. He was with group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite worried and shaken whilst speaking to me.

So now we are going to accuse the "worried and shaken" Martin Smith of lying too? Apparently the UK Police took his information very seriously indeed.

I must say, for the McCann supporters who rubbish and dismiss any theory of governmental interference and misinformation out of hand as "ludicrous", they are rather too happy to accuse totally uninvolved and innocent witnesses of the same thing.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html

:cow:

BBM

The Smith family did not unquestionably see the same thing. Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. Therefore he did not unquestionably think it was Gerry.

No one else in the family made statements saying they thought it was Gerry. In fact Martin Smith says in his statement that 2 of the adults there did not think it was Gerry. According to him his wife agreed (60-80%? less..more?) that it was Gerry yet she hasn't made a statement. Which is kind of strange considering this is a missing child we're talking about. This leads me to believe she is less sure that it was Gerry than he is.

Where is Gerry placed at 10? Seeing as the alarm was raised for a missing Madeleine at 10 the PJ would have most certainly have asked witnesses where Gerry was at this time. Have any independent witnesses come forward and said that Gerry was not at the tapas bar when he says he was.

Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry was in the process of disposing of Madeleine's body???

It makes no sense whatsoever.

SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 06:41 PM
BBM

The Smith family did not unquestionably see the same thing. Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. Therefore he did not unquestionably think it was Gerry.

No one else in the family made statements saying they thought it was Gerry. In fact Martin Smith says in his statement that 2 of the adults there did not think it was Gerry. According to him his wife agreed (60-80%? less..more?) that it was Gerry yet she hasn't made a statement. Which is kind of strange considering this is a missing child we're talking about. This leads me to believe she is less sure that it was Gerry than he is.

Where is Gerry placed at 10? Seeing as the alarm was raised for a missing Madeleine at 10 the PJ would have most certainly have asked witnesses where Gerry was at this time. Have any independent witnesses come forward and said that Gerry was not at the tapas bar when he says he was.

Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry was in the process of disposing of Madeleine's body???

It makes no sense whatsoever.

As I said before, the McCann defence is based entirely on tearing other evidence apart.

No one knows where Gerry was at 10 because the reconstruction never took place...in fact, Gerry's whereabouts for most of 3 May are still uncertain.

The reconstruction never took place because the McCann refused to cooperate.

The truth is now lost to the mists of time...which was the point.

I have absolutely no doubt that Martin Smith did not lose sleep over a "60%" certainty...he was 100% certain, otherwise why lose sleep and go to the trouble of contacting the police again?

It is so predictable that now Martin Smith is wrong/rubbish/mistaken too.

Everyone is, except the McCann.

:banghead:

Gem2626
11-22-2012, 07:39 PM
As I said before, the McCann defence is based entirely on tearing other evidence apart.

No one knows where Gerry was at 10 because the reconstruction never took place...in fact, Gerry's whereabouts for most of 3 May are still uncertain.

The reconstruction never took place because the McCann refused to cooperate.

The truth is now lost to the mists of time...which was the point.

I have absolutely no doubt that Martin Smith did not lose sleep over a "60%" certainty...he was 100% certain, otherwise why lose sleep and go to the trouble of contacting the police again?

It is so predictable that now Martin Smith is wrong/rubbish/mistaken too.

Everyone is, except the McCann.

:banghead:

If Gerry was missing from the hotel at 10pm then that would have been all over the papers by now. It has nothing to do with the reconstruction all the PJ had to do is ask each independent witness whether they saw Gerry at the hotel when Kate raised the alarm. You don't need a whole reconstruction for that.

Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction. Where are you getting this information?

You can find all of the information about the reconstruction here from the original sources
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077838/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2023

If Martin Smith was 100% sure of this sighting he would have said 100% or maybe even 99% for safe measures. Instead he has said 60-80% which is a fair amount lower.

No one is saying that Martin Smith is wrong. This information is coming straight from HIM. He is saying there is a 20-40% chance he could be wrong. You can't just dismiss his certainty and change that to 0% because you feel like it.

And of course he's going to lose sleep. If he thought there was a 10% chance it was Gerry he'd probably still have lost sleep. He potentially saw Madeleine's abductor poor guy.

Again, Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry couldn't be accounted for? That would throw suspicion right at them.

badhorsie
11-22-2012, 07:39 PM
BBM

The Smith family did not unquestionably see the same thing. Martin Smith said he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry. Therefore he did not unquestionably think it was Gerry.

No one else in the family made statements saying they thought it was Gerry. In fact Martin Smith says in his statement that 2 of the adults there did not think it was Gerry. According to him his wife agreed (60-80%? less..more?) that it was Gerry yet she hasn't made a statement. Which is kind of strange considering this is a missing child we're talking about. This leads me to believe she is less sure that it was Gerry than he is.

Where is Gerry placed at 10? Seeing as the alarm was raised for a missing Madeleine at 10 the PJ would have most certainly have asked witnesses where Gerry was at this time. Have any independent witnesses come forward and said that Gerry was not at the tapas bar when he says he was.

Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry was in the process of disposing of Madeleine's body???

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Does anything about this case make any sense?

SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 08:12 PM
Does anything about this case make any sense?


None.

Least of all the unswerving belief based on exactly nothing but denial and emotion, that the McCann must be innocent.

I must say I get rather tired of posting and reposting facts, and having them torn apart by ignorant, unlinked, and just plain incorrect rebuttals.

If people wish to defend the McCann, defend them...but you cannot do it by obliterating and overlooking the facts.

Defend them in a positive manner. Provide evidence for your theories (we always do).

In reality, the McCann supporter can only defend by offence. They can only support their own views by tearing down or muddying facts, and slurring the innocent. They offer absolutely nothing by way of PROOF of their own, yet treat the PROOF we do have as "ludicrous".

That's the real mystery...how these people have managed to engender such blind faith despite undeniable deceit and evidence.

:waitasec:

:cow:

Clutchbag
11-22-2012, 08:36 PM
I don't understand. What is this meant to prove? That someone shares the same opinion?

Its not meant to prove anything at all, its a post belonging in this thread which is called *censorship*
:moo:

SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 09:03 PM
If Gerry was missing from the hotel at 10pm then that would have been all over the papers by now. It has nothing to do with the reconstruction all the PJ had to do is ask each independent witness whether they saw Gerry at the hotel when Kate raised the alarm. You don't need a whole reconstruction for that.

Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction. Where are you getting this information?

You can find all of the information about the reconstruction here from the original sources
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077838/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2023

If Martin Smith was 100% sure of this sighting he would have said 100% or maybe even 99% for safe measures. Instead he has said 60-80% which is a fair amount lower.

No one is saying that Martin Smith is wrong. This information is coming straight from HIM. He is saying there is a 20-40% chance he could be wrong. You can't just dismiss his certainty and change that to 0% because you feel like it.

And of course he's going to lose sleep. If he thought there was a 10% chance it was Gerry he'd probably still have lost sleep. He potentially saw Madeleine's abductor poor guy.

Again, Why would Kate raise the alarm when Gerry couldn't be accounted for? That would throw suspicion right at them.

Do you not see the irony of your post?

There shouldn't even be a Smith sighting.

If there is a Smith sighting, it should not be of Gerry...not even 5% possibility! Or 2%! It should be "not Gerry"...not 20%, or even 1%!

80% certainty is very, very high....10% certainty would be very high too, because Gerry was not supposed to be there at all in the first place!

What is 20% of a human body? Feet and ankles? Ok so his feet and ankles cannot be definitely identified, but the rest of him was!!!!!

If Mr Smith had any doubt it was Gerry, he would NOT have called the Leicetershire Police and offered to return to PDL, nor llost sleep, got anxious and agitated, and had a flashback when he saw Gerry on tv.

Absurd. Now the Smiths are unreliable too.

:banghead:

I say again...instead of continually tearing down what we do know, the evidence and sightings we do have, why can't anyone counteract it with a sighting of someone who say, did not look 80% like Gerry carrying Madeleine?

It can't be done, because there isn't one.

There is absolutely no proof or evidence or sightings on an intruder.

Clutchbag
11-22-2012, 09:13 PM
Kate and Gerry did not refuse to do a reconstruction. Where are you getting this information?

.

they couldnt refuse to do one, it was never up to them as arguidos, they would have been legally obliged to do one but their friends scuppered it. It is video documented that theywere not keen and didnt really want one with various reasons given, eg people have to realise what theyhave already been through, ,going back would be too hard, what good would it do a year later etcetc,the videos have been posted on here umpteen times, do give me a shout if you cant find them, so much for leaving no stone unturned, and that goes for all their friends who were invited by the police to go back for onebut theywere all too busy, they too having said they would do anything to help hmmmmm

And a year after all this they wentback with some of their friends to do their so called personal reconstruction,aka channel four documentary called maddie was here, found on you tube

Gem2626
11-22-2012, 09:42 PM
Do you not see the irony of your post?

There shouldn't even be a Smith sighting.

If there is a Smith sighting, it should not be of Gerry...not even 5% possibility! Or 2%! It should be "not Gerry"...not 20%, or even 1%!

80% certainty is very, very high....10% certainty would be very high too, because Gerry was not supposed to be there at all in the first place!

What is 20% of a human body? Feet and ankles? Ok so his feet and ankles cannot be definitely identified, but the rest of him was!!!!!

If Mr Smith had any doubt it was Gerry, he would NOT have called the Leicetershire Police and offered to return to PDL, nor llost sleep, got anxious and agitated, and had a flashback when he saw Gerry on tv.

Absurd. Now the Smiths are unreliable too.

:banghead:

I say again...instead of continually tearing down what we do know, the evidence and sightings we do have, why can't anyone counteract it with a sighting of someone who say, did not look 80% like Gerry carrying Madeleine?

It can't be done, because there isn't one.

There is absolutely no proof or evidence or sightings on an intruder.

There is nothing majorly distinctive about Gerry mcCann that he couldn't be confused with someone else besides he didn't identify Gerry on his appearance he identified him by the way the child was carried and his stance.

I'm far from saying the Smith sighting was unreliable. Martin Smith is saying himself that he has a 20-40% doubt that it was not Gerry. Because of this doubt his statement wouldn't make it into court.

IMO there is just no way anyone would be stupid enough to raise the alarm at the same time as someone is off disposing of the body.

Here on Websleuths you can see the number of people who have disappeared where there has been no trace of them. The abductor needed 5 mins max to get in and out and off. If Madeleine is still alive then I very much doubt that she's be out in public.

SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 10:50 PM
There is nothing majorly distinctive about Gerry mcCann that he couldn't be confused with someone else besides he didn't identify Gerry on his appearance he identified him by the way the child was carried and his stance.

I'm far from saying the Smith sighting was unreliable. Martin Smith is saying himself that he has a 20-40% doubt that it was not Gerry. Because of this doubt his statement wouldn't make it into court.

IMO there is just no way anyone would be stupid enough to raise the alarm at the same time as someone is off disposing of the body.

Here on Websleuths you can see the number of people who have disappeared where there has been no trace of them. The abductor needed 5 mins max to get in and out and off. If Madeleine is still alive then I very much doubt that she's be out in public.

It wasn't the same time.

The Smiths saw "Gerry" at 21.55, they originally thought it was earlier than that.

The alarm wasn't raised until after 10.

Many people in the resort were not aware until 10.30.

The police were not called until 10.40.

There was time.

If the Smiths had've seen "Gerry" at say, 10.15, I would agree with you.

They did not.

There was time.

Gem2626
11-22-2012, 11:41 PM
It wasn't the same time.

The Smiths saw "Gerry" at 21.55, they originally thought it was earlier than that.

The alarm wasn't raised until after 10.

Many people in the resort were not aware until 10.30.

The police were not called until 10.40.

There was time.

If the Smiths had've seen "Gerry" at say, 10.15, I would agree with you.

They did not.

There was time.

Ignoring potential witnesses at the hotel and the people searching around the hotel.

Smith sighting is at 9.55.

So from 9.55 until 10.40 (45 mins) Gerry walked to his destination, disposed of a body successfully enough that it has never been found, in a country he was not familiar with? That 45 minutes is reduced due to walking time and then having to sneak back into the apartment cautiously and get changed out of his beige trousers.

Where exactly did Gerry dispose of Madeleine within this short time that she has never been found?

It doesn't seem likely that barely knowing the area you would pick your dead child up and walk the streets looking for a good place to dispose of her let alone actually find one.

Nor does it seem likely that Kate would raise the alarm at exactly the same time and have to face questioning as to where her husband had disappeared to. For all they knew the police could have arrived in 10 mins and been straight out on the streets patrolling.

SapphireSteel
11-22-2012, 11:43 PM
There is nothing majorly distinctive about Gerry mcCann that he couldn't be confused with someone else besides he didn't identify Gerry on his appearance he identified him by the way the child was carried and his stance.

I'm far from saying the Smith sighting was unreliable. Martin Smith is saying himself that he has a 20-40% doubt that it was not Gerry. Because of this doubt his statement wouldn't make it into court.

IMO there is just no way anyone would be stupid enough to raise the alarm at the same time as someone is off disposing of the body.

Here on Websleuths you can see the number of people who have disappeared where there has been no trace of them. The abductor needed 5 mins max to get in and out and off. If Madeleine is still alive then I very much doubt that she's be out in public.

Gerry only needed 5 minutes too.

Yet you claim on another thread, that he "didn't have time".

:cow:

Gem2626
11-23-2012, 12:18 AM
Gerry only needed 5 minutes too.

Yet you claim on another thread, that he "didn't have time".

:cow:

Gerry needed far more than 5 minutes. He had to dispose of the body so well it would never be found, in a country he barely knew, on foot.

The abductor had to grab Madeleine which would have taken 5 mins max. He didn't have the urgency to immediately dispose of her body all he needed to do was get out and away into hiding so he would not be caught. Considering he most likely knew the local area well and had somewhere he could hide he had a whole lot more time later on (and possibly transport) which would have been a huge advantage for him.

brit1981
11-23-2012, 06:54 AM
an abductor needed to walk in to the flat through the unlocked door, pick the child up, and walk out again. That would have taken less than five minutes. It is likely he was also seen.

gerry would have had to go into the flat, pick up a body, go out of the flat, and walk to somewhere publicly accessible and hide the body so well it was never found, then walk back to the flat so jeremy wilkins could see him at the bottom of the patio steps. No-one saw him doing all this either. It would have taken a ot longer than five minutes to do that, and woudl have meant given the time taken to go into the flat etc he hid the body a maximum of a minutes walk away.

If people are so sure the mccanns are involved, then why do they not present accurate facts, and instead rely on flase hoods.
So we we have people falsy claiming that the dna finds mean there was a 15 out of 19 chance it was madeleine in the car, then we have people falsy claiming the dogs only alert to cadavers (although this is at odds with their claims madeleine was in the car), then we have people falsy claiming they have evidence of cover-ups involving the FSS, US ambassador, two british governments, two portuguese governments, scotland yard, the mccanns, the mccanns friends, the mccanns friends friends, the mccanns friends friends mother, as well as those involved in the jersey care home investigation, that hair belonging to madeleine was found int he car, that the smiths positively identified gerry as carryign a child, that the fund could legally have been a charity, that the mccanns libel actions are unusual etc? Not one of these claims made by those claiming the mccanns are involved are true, yet they keep repeating them and then complaining when other people point out they are untrue as if pointing out falsehoods is somehow suspicious. If peopel are convinced the mccanns are guilty then provide actual evidence, not just repeats of falsehoods with a in my opinion" tagged on. Its fine to say soemthing is an opinion if it is an actual opinion, but not if one is putting soemthign up as a fact. beside sif soemthign si true then the evidence shoudl be there, and people should not have to or want to retreat behind a shield of its just my opinion. If it is just your opinion, then it is not fact nor is it evidence.

Gem2626
11-23-2012, 09:55 AM
Amy Tierney creche worker
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 €“ 35 minutes to arrive.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

Lyndsey Jayne Johnson, Creche Supervisor
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared. At that, she immediately launched the "missing child" procedure.


This procedure consists of dividing the site into several areas, which are allocated to various of the company's employees to start searching for the missing child. To that effect, the informant explains that, around 10.25pm, the date indicated, the said procedure was begun, dividing the whole site into three distinct areas, namely the north zone, the central zone (including the area of the company) and all the roads surrounding the company and which go as far as the beach. Five of the company's employees were mobilised to coordinate the searches, helped by various people ( other employees, tourists and residents)

Lots of people out on the streets searching!

Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo, a Tapas bar waiter
I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.?

I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman (Dianne Webster), that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

The alarm was raised at 22H00 we can assume the later time is more accurate based on everyone but Dianne Webster having left the table alone and the restaurant worker already knowing that Madeleine was missing

So... The Smith sighting is a 21.55 Gerry is placed at the hotel at 22.00 or shortly after by a restaurant worker. He is then placed at the reception at 22.20 by the creche worker. The phone call to the creche supervisor backs this time up.

Based on these witness statements by people that knew Gerry and saw his face against Martin Smith who thought it was Gerry based on how he held the child and the fact that he himself said that he was not 100% sure (60-80%) It was NOT Gerry that Martin Smith saw.

SapphireSteel
11-23-2012, 04:49 PM
Amy Tierney creche worker
The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 €“ 35 minutes to arrive.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

Lyndsey Jayne Johnson, Creche Supervisor
She indicates that on May 3rd 2007, at around 10.20pm, she was informed by her colleague Amy T. that Madeleine McCann had disappeared. At that, she immediately launched the "missing child" procedure.


This procedure consists of dividing the site into several areas, which are allocated to various of the company's employees to start searching for the missing child. To that effect, the informant explains that, around 10.25pm, the date indicated, the said procedure was begun, dividing the whole site into three distinct areas, namely the north zone, the central zone (including the area of the company) and all the roads surrounding the company and which go as far as the beach. Five of the company's employees were mobilised to coordinate the searches, helped by various people ( other employees, tourists and residents)

Lots of people out on the streets searching!

Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo, a Tapas bar waiter
I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.?

I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman (Dianne Webster), that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

The alarm was raised at 22H00 we can assume the later time is more accurate based on everyone but Dianne Webster having left the table alone and the restaurant worker already knowing that Madeleine was missing

So... The Smith sighting is a 21.55 Gerry is placed at the hotel at 22.00 or shortly after by a restaurant worker. He is then placed at the reception at 22.20 by the creche worker. The phone call to the creche supervisor backs this time up.

Based on these witness statements by people that knew Gerry and saw his face against Martin Smith who thought it was Gerry based on how he held the child and the fact that he himself said that he was not 100% sure (60-80%) It was NOT Gerry that Martin Smith saw.

Not one word of this means that Gerry could not have been carrying Madeleine at 21.55 or slightly earlier, as the Smiths originally believed.

From the PJ Final Report -

. The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal).

. What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).

~sbm~

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

That is police speak for "people were lying".

:banghead:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

But of course, in the mind of the McCann Supporter, it was the entire PJ and the British Police and the dogs who were lying, not them.

:cow:

Of course, nothing explains why these investigating agencies would be lying...just to be mean to the McCann I suppose.

:dunno:

Gem2626
11-23-2012, 06:56 PM
Not one word of this means that Gerry could not have been carrying Madeleine at 21.55 or slightly earlier, as the Smiths originally believed.

From the PJ Final Report -

. The establishing of a timeline and of the effective checking of the minors that were left alone inside the apartments, given the fact that, believing that said checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, to say the least, very difficult that the conditions were reunited for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said individual, with the child, namely through a window with little space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass that window holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that was visualized by witness JANE TANNER (horizontal).

. What happened during the time lapse between 5.30 p.m. (the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time by a person that differs from her parents or siblings) and the time at which the disappearance is reported by KATE HEALY (at around 10 p.m.).

~sbm~

In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor.

That is police speak for "people were lying".

:banghead:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

But of course, in the mind of the McCann Supporter, it was the entire PJ and the British Police and the dogs who were lying, not them.

:cow:

Of course, nothing explains why these investigating agencies would be lying...just to be mean to the McCann I suppose.

:dunno:

Smith Family Sightings

Martin Smith
Says they went for dinner then went To kelly's bar. They left at 21.55 as son was traveling early the next day.
States that when he saw the man carrying the child it it would have been around 22.00

Aoife Smith
Says they went for dinner, left the restaurant at 21.30. Headed towards Kelly's bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
Around 22.00 they left the bar.

"she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland"

Peter Smith
Says they left the bar between 21.50-22.00. States that when he passed the individual carrying the child it would have been 21.55-22.00.

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

There is nothing in their statements to suggest that it may have been earlier than 21.55 if anything it would have been slightly later. All their statements are consistent.

All the hotel staffs statements are consistent and fit in with the alarm being raised at around 10pm and Gerry being at the scene from that time onwards.

Even if the Smith sighting was earlier there would still not be enough time for Gerry to dispose of Madeleine's body, on foot, in a country he barely knew.

I would be interested to hear an actual timeline and way that Gerry Mccann could have disposed of Madeleine so well her body has never been found within this time frame.

I'm not discussing anything else you mentioned in this post because it gets confusing. This is about rebutting the Smith sighting.

SapphireSteel
11-23-2012, 07:23 PM
Smith Family Sightings

Martin Smith
Says they went for dinner then went To kelly's bar. They left at 21.55 as son was traveling early the next day.
States that when he saw the man carrying the child it it would have been around 22.00

Aoife Smith
Says they went for dinner, left the restaurant at 21.30. Headed towards Kelly's bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
Around 22.00 they left the bar.

"she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland"

Peter Smith
Says they left the bar between 21.50-22.00. States that when he passed the individual carrying the child it would have been 21.55-22.00.

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

There is nothing in their statements to suggest that it may have been earlier than 21.55 if anything it would have been slightly later. All their statements are consistent.

All the hotel staffs statements are consistent and fit in with the alarm being raised at around 10pm and Gerry being at the scene from that time onwards.

Even if the Smith sighting was earlier there would still not be enough time for Gerry to dispose of Madeleine's body, on foot, in a country he barely knew.

I would be interested to hear an actual timeline and way that Gerry Mccann could have disposed of Madeleine so well her body has never been found within this time frame.

I'm not discussing anything else you mentioned in this post because it gets confusing. This is about rebutting the Smith sighting.

Everyone would be interested to hear a timeline. We have timelines, but they are confused and contradictory.

I would be interested to know if the Smiths had actually updated their watches to Portugese time in the first place...it is never mentioned.

The timing for *whoever* to get from the OC to the beach and back again is 15 minutes.

It remains unclear exactly what time Kate started screaming..."around 10" is the closest we can get.

Some staff did not hear the ruckus until 10.30.

As far as Gerry not being familiar with the area - the McCanns dumped their children in daycare and spent their days jogging, playing tennis, and wandering around PDL.

They both jogged all over the nearby beach and hills.

They knew it well.

There is also suspicion he placed her not on the beach, but buried in some roadworks between the beach and the resort.

The dogs were not brought in until the next day.

We know for a fact the McCanns were left completely alone from 4am onwards and that they went for a walk together at 6am.

Plenty of time to move a tiny body.

If there was a car or apartment they had access to, it's a matter of opening a door and shutting it again.

All they had to do is hide her from sight...I've even wondered if they put her up ^ somewhere. People do not look above them when searching for lost toddlers. The searches on 3 May consisted of Mark Warner staff and guests stumbling around in the dark looking for a wandering child, not a hidden body.

The McCanns were made arguidos because the British and Portugese police developed evidence (which remains secret) that implicated them.

They could not have done this if the McCanns had rock solid alibis.

It is clear from the PJ report, that they did not have rock solid alibis, at all. It is also clear that due to the noncooperation of the Tapas 9, that a reconstruction could not be done, which was necessary to clarify events of that day.

To this day, no one knows what Gerry did on 3 May 2007.

Gem2626
11-24-2012, 12:01 PM
Everyone would be interested to hear a timeline. We have timelines, but they are confused and contradictory.

I don't see any timelines of how the Smith sighting fits in with this being Gerry?


I would be interested to know if the Smiths had actually updated their watches to Portugese time in the first place...it is never mentioned.

There were 4 of them relating the same time. They had reason to know the correct time. Some of the group were flying back the next day. If all their watches had been kept at GMT then they would have been aware of that every time they looked at their watch. They had been on holiday for some days and would have got used to that. That's from personal experience.

Even if they hadn't changed their watches then their sighting would have been at 20.55-21.00 and Gerry was talking to Jeremy Wilkins at 21.05 so again would rule Gerry out.


The timing for *whoever* to get from the OC to the beach and back again is 15 minutes.

That might be true if you're walking straight there, turning round and coming straight back. Not when your carry a dead child half the way and then having to dispose of her body.

It remains unclear exactly what time Kate started screaming..."around 10" is the closest we can get.

Some staff did not hear the ruckus until 10.30.

Some of the staff yes but Gerry was placed at the hotel looking between 21.30-22.00 (which we can assume was more close to 22.00). That member of staff was told at this time that the rest of the tapas 9 had gone to look for Madeleine. Gerry was seen again at 22.20 when the police were called, Pamela Fenn says she spoke to him from her balcony at 22.30 and then not long after that the police arrived.


Staff have placed Gerry at the hotel, Martin Smith thought 60-80% that it was Gerry he saw. No others in his group have made a statement to say they thought it was Gerry. 2 members of the group according to Martin Smith did not think it was Gerry.


As far as Gerry not being familiar with the area - the McCanns dumped their children in daycare and spent their days jogging, playing tennis, and wandering around PDL.

They both jogged all over the nearby beach and hills.

They knew it well.

They'd been there 6 days. There's knowing a place you've been at for 6 days and knowing a place n 6 days well enough to hide a body that has never been found.

There is also suspicion he placed her not on the beach, but buried in some roadworks between the beach and the resort.

This comes from the media and was ruled out in the media. There are no official statements. I have read that the PJ interviewed the foreman of the roadworks who said he personally checked. The PJ apparently didn't bother checking himself. I also saw in the media that the hole was not big enough.


I'm not going to find the links because it comes from the media. I'd like to think that the PJ did rule this out though. It wouldn't have been that hard to do.

The dogs were not brought in until the next day.

We know for a fact the McCanns were left completely alone from 4am onwards and that they went for a walk together at 6am.

Plenty of time to move a tiny body.

That would rule out the Smith sighting then

If there was a car or apartment they had access to, it's a matter of opening a door and shutting it again.

Again that would rule out the Smith sighting.There is no evidence that they had access to a car at this time or that they had an unknown friend with a car. The only other people's apartments they had access to were in the hotel.

All they had to do is hide her from sight...I've even wondered if they put her up ^ somewhere. People do not look above them when searching for lost toddlers. The searches on 3 May consisted of Mark Warner staff and guests stumbling around in the dark looking for a wandering child, not a hidden body.

Again that would rule out the Smith sighting.

The McCanns were made arguidos because the British and Portugese police developed evidence (which remains secret) that implicated them.

The national director of the PJ said that this was done too hastily

They could not have done this if the McCanns had rock solid alibis.

I'm not discussing other times except for this particular time when the Smith sighting occurred otherwise it gets confusing. I can understand the police not believing what the tapas 9 claim but Gerry was placed at the hotel around this time.

It is clear from the PJ report, that they did not have rock solid alibis, at all. It is also clear that due to the noncooperation of the Tapas 9, that a reconstruction could not be done, which was necessary to clarify events of that day.

Kate and Gerry would have done the reconstruction. It was Jeremy Wilkins who said he didn't want to do it and then after seeking legal advice others in the group said they wouldn't. As far as i'm aware only the tapas 9 and Jeremy Wilkins were asked to return not the hotel staff so how would this help with alibis?



To this day, no one knows what Gerry did on 3 May 2007.
There are witnesses who have placed Gerry at certain places during the day. Again, my post was related to the Smiths and their sighting it confuses matters when people start bringing in theories for other times when that is not what is being discussed in the particular post.

Clutchbag
11-24-2012, 02:08 PM
the live sniffer dogs rule out BOTH tanner and smith sightings as they did not trace her scent anywhere near both locations, ive always thought both were red herrings

brit1981
11-24-2012, 02:11 PM
Not one person in the smith family id-ed Gerry. At the time they all said that as it was dark they could not see who the man was. Weeks later one of them said aas it was dark and he did not have his glasses he could nto identify the man, but going from body language he was about 60% sure it could have been Gerry, however the others in his party did not back this up, and several independent witnesses put him at the complex at this time.

And again at the time people could be made aguidos on flimsy grounds - murat and the mccanns all presented alibis but these were ignored.

So again we have to ask why people want to turn attention away from child abduction in the algarve so much that they make things up about the parents? because the rumour that gerry was positively identified by the smiths is a falsehood.

SapphireSteel
11-24-2012, 05:31 PM
the live sniffer dogs rule out BOTH tanner and smith sightings as they did not trace her scent anywhere near both locations, ive always thought both were red herrings

No.

The way my logical mind works, they both saw Gerry.

Tanner knew she saw Gerry and tried to cover it up.

I can't figure out how they did it either, but they did. I think it likely that Tanner was lookout, but why? I have no clue.

:dunno:

Her behaviour afterwards did disturb me though. She enjoyed the media attention as long as she was calling the shots. She even had a film crew to her home, more than once.

This to me is remarkable. At the end of the day, a little girl is missing, you were there, you're clearly being dishonest, and you're going on the telly?

:what:

Strange. But then so is the entire thing.

The Smith sighting and Tanner lying are the things I can't get past nor explain. Nor can I explain away the cadaver dogs, the evidence of refrigeration and later movement, the positive DNA results, the mistruths regarding the shutters and the doors, the discrepancies visit by Payne earlier in the evening, the testimony of the Gaspars, the inability of two educated medical professionals to realise leaving their three babies alone and defenceless night after night is neglect at it's worst.

There's a lot I can't explain, and I agree with Amaral. The only way to clarify exactly what happened, and who did what that night, would be a reconstruction.

The Tapas 9 refused to cooperate. Around that same time, Payne mentioned their "pact".

2+2=4.

ETA: re the staff sightings - the reason they call them "staff" is they were working at the time, not watching their customers every movement. I worked in busy restaurants myself and you don't even notice an empty chair, people go to the toilet. None of them can be relied upon...except the chef in the kitchen maybe, who stated he had to reheat a steak meal from that table because someone was gone "a long time" ie it was stone cold. Chefs HATE reheating steak...it ruins it. He would have been tut tutting the entire time.

:cow:

:banghead:

Clutchbag
11-24-2012, 05:36 PM
No.

The way my logical mind works, they both saw Gerry.

Tanner knew she saw Gerry and tried to cover it up.

I can't figure out how they did it either, but they did. I think it likely that Tanner was lookout, but why? I have no clue.

:dunno:

Her behaviour afterwards did disturb me though. She enjoyed the media attention as long as she was calling the shots. She even had a film crew to her home, more than once.

This to me is remarkable. At the end of the day, a little girl is missing, you were there, you're clearly being dishonest, and you're going on the telly?

:what:

Strange. But then so is the entire thing.

The Smith sighting and Tanner lying are the things I can't get past nor explain. Nor can I explain away the cadaver dogs, the evidence of refrigeration and later movement, the positive DNA results, the mistruths regarding the shutters and the doors, the discrepancies visit by Payne earlier in the evening, the testimony of the Gaspars, the inability of two educated medical professionals to realise leaving their three babies alone and defenceless night after night is neglect at it's worst.

There's a lot I can't explain, and I agree with Amaral. The only way to clarify exactly what happened, and who did what that night, would be a reconstruction.

The Tapas 9 refused to cooperate. Around that same time, Payne mentioned their "pact".

2+2=4.

:cow:

:banghead:

i dont recall tanner having a film crew at her house ever or enjoying media attention or calling the shots????

SapphireSteel
11-24-2012, 07:04 PM
i dont recall tanner having a film crew at her house ever or enjoying media attention or calling the shots????

I apologise, when I looked at what I thought was her house was perhaps not her house...

tanner - YouTube

But then I found this...

http://thetapas9janetanner.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/httpjillhavern.html

maybe the cameras weren't actually whirring at the time.

:dunno:

Clutchbag
11-24-2012, 08:29 PM
I apologise, when I looked at what I thought was her house was perhaps not her house...

tanner - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y42_8vggMNQ)

But then I found this...

http://thetapas9janetanner.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/httpjillhavern.html

maybe the cameras weren't actually whirring at the time.

:dunno:

no worries
Tanner went on panorama in oct 07 to tell of the man she saw and clear her name as fantasist etc

Funny though how she kelt shaking her head as if to say no when sayingyes oops

Shame gerry and kate mccann screwed her over two years later in their so called documentary called madeleine was here making her cry and making her bekieve she was mistaken that sne saw gerry and jez on the aide of the road she was walking on

Madeleine was here part 4/5 - YouTube


from around 1.40

The whole docu is worthy lookimg at to see the mishmash and smoke n mirrors

Gem2626
11-25-2012, 09:22 AM
No.

The way my logical mind works, they both saw Gerry.

Tanner knew she saw Gerry and tried to cover it up.

I can't figure out how they did it either, but they did. I think it likely that Tanner was lookout, but why? I have no clue.

:dunno:

Her behaviour afterwards did disturb me though. She enjoyed the media attention as long as she was calling the shots. She even had a film crew to her home, more than once.

This to me is remarkable. At the end of the day, a little girl is missing, you were there, you're clearly being dishonest, and you're going on the telly?

:what:

Strange. But then so is the entire thing.

The Smith sighting and Tanner lying are the things I can't get past nor explain. Nor can I explain away the cadaver dogs, the evidence of refrigeration and later movement, the positive DNA results, the mistruths regarding the shutters and the doors, the discrepancies visit by Payne earlier in the evening, the testimony of the Gaspars, the inability of two educated medical professionals to realise leaving their three babies alone and defenceless night after night is neglect at it's worst.

There's a lot I can't explain, and I agree with Amaral. The only way to clarify exactly what happened, and who did what that night, would be a reconstruction.

The Tapas 9 refused to cooperate. Around that same time, Payne mentioned their "pact".

2+2=4.

ETA: re the staff sightings - the reason they call them "staff" is they were working at the time, not watching their customers every movement. I worked in busy restaurants myself and you don't even notice an empty chair, people go to the toilet. None of them can be relied upon...except the chef in the kitchen maybe, who stated he had to reheat a steak meal from that table because someone was gone "a long time" ie it was stone cold. Chefs HATE reheating steak...it ruins it. He would have been tut tutting the entire time.

:cow:

:banghead:

So Martin Smiths admits there's a 20-40% chance he was wrong that it was Gerry- baring in mind his feeling was based on the way he walks and that 2 others in his group didn't think it was Smith. 1 witness places him at the hotel between 21.30-22.00 (we can assume it was closer to 22.00 seeing as Madeleine wasn't missing at 21.30) searching around the pool and playground. One witness says he was at the hotel reception at 22.20. A phone call to her supervisor backs up her time. And the woman in the apartment places him in the apartment at 22.30.

Yet you still think Gerry could have sneaked off in a very short space of time and disposed of a body so well it's never been found, in a country he'd been in for only 6 days, on foot.

Why don't you actually try and write out a timeline that would fit in with this being Gerry

SapphireSteel
11-25-2012, 03:08 PM
So Martin Smiths admits there's a 20-40% chance he was wrong that it was Gerry- baring in mind his feeling was based on the way he walks and that 2 others in his group didn't think it was Smith. 1 witness places him at the hotel between 21.30-22.00 (we can assume it was closer to 22.00 seeing as Madeleine wasn't missing at 21.30)

Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.

:waitasec:



searching around the pool and playground. One witness says he was at the hotel reception at 22.20. A phone call to her supervisor backs up her time. And the woman in the apartment places him in the apartment at 22.30.]

This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00? :dunno:



Yet you still think Gerry could have sneaked off in a very short space of time and disposed of a body so well it's never been found, in a country he'd been in for only 6 days, on foot.

Why don't you actually try and write out a timeline that would fit in with this being Gerry

I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.

I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".

They address the Smith sighting.

They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.

Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.

We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.

So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.

That gives a full 15-20 minutes.

Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.

So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.

:banghead:

As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.

Extraordinary. But then, so is the entire case.

:cow:

brit1981
11-25-2012, 03:17 PM
So let me get this straight people think that Gerry was talking to jeremy wilkins whilst at the exact same time was seen by jane tanner walking across the junction? They also belive he was seen by several member sof MW staff as well as other guests, but that at the same time he walked past the smith family (who could not identify him, but weeks later one of them said they was a 60% chance it was gerry and a 40% it was someone else going by body language alone).
Oh, and the US government was somehow involved and pressured two EU governments into dropping the case?
I do hope people have told scotland yard about these theories.

There were no positive dna results - what needs to be explained is why people want this myth to go around?
There was no evidence of refrigeration - again why do people want this to go around?
There have been no mistruths about the shutters or the door?
there were no suspicious descrepancies about the payne visit
the gasper statement is not exactly damning, two grown men were maybe heard talking about somethign related to sex - the gaspar husband thought notheing of it, and the wife said she was happy for the guy to bath the children.

I think the main question is why are these lies being put around, who doe sit benefit to take attention away from an abductor and onto the parents? We know due to his aguido status amaral benefited from people thinking there were no abductors in the area, and the "madeleine foundation" was run by people with a history of doing this sort of thing and claiming cover-ups and conspiracies everywhere, and if one reads other sites about madeleine one can see that the ones accusing the parents as well as spreading lies, also do this with other cases and people so it is not just about the mccanns they are just the most well known internationally (some of these people are now looking at being sued by Lord McAlpine due to their twitterings).

Gem2626
11-25-2012, 05:15 PM
Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.

:waitasec:

My mistake. What I meant was that the alarm for a missing Madeleine was not raised until around 22.00. We can assume that the tapas bar waiter's time when he saw Gerry searching between 21.30 and 22.00 was in fact closer to 22.00 as the alarm hadn't been raised at 21.30. He spoke to one of the tapas 9 and asked her why she was sitting on her own and she said because the others were searching for Madeleine which again supports the latter time.



This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00? :dunno:

It's not irrelevant it narrows down the time Gerry would have to dispose of Madeleine

I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.

I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".

They address the Smith sighting.

They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.

Maybe you should link to this. They said 21.55-22.00 in their statements.

Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.

We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.

Link please

So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.

That gives a full 15-20 minutes.

Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.


So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.

I wasn't asking for the McCanns timeline

:banghead:

As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.

You are guilty of this too for starters it was you that said the Smith family thought it was Gerry when it fact it was only Martin Smith and according to him his wife. Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the information and remember what's in the files and what came from the media.

Extraordinary. But then, so is the entire case.

:cow:


IMO this case is a lot simpler than people are making it out to be.

SapphireSteel
11-25-2012, 07:49 PM
IMO this case is a lot simpler than people are making it out to be.

I agree.

If you know the facts, it is undeniable they are guilty of a cover up at the very least.

:cow:

Clutchbag
11-25-2012, 08:33 PM
I think the main question is why are these lies being put around, who doe sit benefit to take attention away from an abductor and onto the parents? We know due to his aguido status amaral benefited from people thinking there were no abductors in the area, and the "madeleine foundation" was run by people with a history of doing this sort of thing and claiming cover-ups and conspiracies everywhere, and if one reads other sites about madeleine one can see that the ones accusing the parents as well as spreading lies, also do this with other cases and people so it is not just about the mccanns they are just the most well known internationally (some of these people are now looking at being sued by Lord McAlpine due to their twitterings).


dream on bit so stop libelling, oh and by the way, what abductor? You state it as a fact, steady on chum before u get too carried away hey?
:floorlaugh:


Shame on you for saying mr amaral benefited from his arguido status by people thinking there were no abductors in the area, whats that in ENGLISH

exactly what r u accusing him of?

What abductors in the area? lets see some facts for a change, would be refreshing

SapphireSteel
11-26-2012, 01:08 AM
I missed responding to half of this - cant think why. My answers in blue. :)

inally Posted by SapphireSteel

Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.

My mistake. What I meant was that the alarm for a missing Madeleine was not raised until around 22.00. We can assume that the tapas bar waiter's time when he saw Gerry searching between 21.30 and 22.00 was in fact closer to 22.00 as the alarm hadn't been raised at 21.30. He spoke to one of the tapas 9 and asked her why she was sitting on her own and she said because the others were searching for Madeleine which again supports the latter time.

Why can we assume that?

Perhaps the waiter saw Gerry returning from hiding her, or doing his "check"...how on earth can we assume he was "searching"?

This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00?

It's not irrelevant it narrows down the time Gerry would have to dispose of Madeleine

See above.

I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.

I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".

They address the Smith sighting.

They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.

Maybe you should link to this. They said 21.55-22.00 in their statements.

No problem. From the transcript -

Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)s sighting and mile away from the Mcs apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town. Later the witness thought that this might have been GM. But, this was investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police.

DE: A man was seen here carrying a child, just before 10 pm on the night Madeleine was abducted. When the man saw the family he appeared furtive and veered off to one side and carried on walking. Obviously, anyone carrying a child at night, its really important. We need to find out who this person was.

So, Tanner's famous "check" was undertaken at 9.10. Add 40 minutes and it's 9.50. If you watch the documentary itself, a screen shot comes across confirming 9.50. Unfortunately it doesn't appear in the transcript I have found but it is freely available on youtube.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html


Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.

We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.

Link please

From the PJ's final report -

4 What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy at around 10 p.m.;[/

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.

That gives a full 15-20 minutes.

Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.


So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.

I wasn't asking for the McCanns timeline

What are you asking for again? More links from me and more tolerance for posting more opinion as fact?

As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.

You are guilty of this too for starters it was you that said the Smith family thought it was Gerry when it fact it was only Martin Smith and according to him his wife.

You aren't seriously suggesting that this unimportant little slip of the tongue is in some way comparable to the unlinked whoppers you've been posting?

:lol:

Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the information and remember what's in the files and what came from the media.

If you can't keep the facts apart from the spin, maybe don't dispute every single post by others who can, and who post the facts, with links.

Please.


:please:

Gem2626
11-26-2012, 09:39 AM
I missed responding to half of this - cant think why. My answers in blue. :)

inally Posted by SapphireSteel

Can you please link that statement? All information I have is that no one outside the Tapas 9 clapped eyes on her after 5.30...which is in the PJ's final report.

My mistake. What I meant was that the alarm for a missing Madeleine was not raised until around 22.00. We can assume that the tapas bar waiter's time when he saw Gerry searching between 21.30 and 22.00 was in fact closer to 22.00 as the alarm hadn't been raised at 21.30. He spoke to one of the tapas 9 and asked her why she was sitting on her own and she said because the others were searching for Madeleine which again supports the latter time.

Why can we assume that?

Perhaps the waiter saw Gerry returning from hiding her, or doing his "check"...how on earth can we assume he was "searching"?

This is irrelevant, we are talking about the events before 10.00?

It's not irrelevant it narrows down the time Gerry would have to dispose of Madeleine

See above.

I don't need to.
'
I'm delighted to find, the McCann has done it for me.

I have now viewed their "account of the truth", the mockumentary "Madeleine was here".

They address the Smith sighting.

They themselves place the time of this sighting at 21.50.

Maybe you should link to this. They said 21.55-22.00 in their statements.

No problem. From the transcript -

Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town. Later the witness thought that this might have been GM. But, this was investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police.

DE: A man was seen here carrying a child, just before 10 pm on the night Madeleine was abducted. When the man saw the family he appeared furtive and veered off to one side and carried on walking. Obviously, anyone carrying a child at night, it’s really important. We need to find out who this person was.

So, Tanner's famous "check" was undertaken at 9.10. Add 40 minutes and it's 9.50. If you watch the documentary itself, a screen shot comes across confirming 9.50. Unfortunately it doesn't appear in the transcript I have found but it is freely available on youtube.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html


Ten full minutes before the alert was sounded...at least.

We know that 10pm is not actually confirmed...some statements imply it was later.

Link please

From the PJ's final report -

4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;[/



http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html

So, let's assume it was actually 10.05 or 10.10 the alert was sounded.

That gives a full 15-20 minutes.

Earlier I stated that the round trip to the beach and back was timed at 15 minutes....I had not seen their "documentary" at the time.


So...there you have it. One perfect timeline, provided by the McCann themselves.

I wasn't asking for the McCanns timeline

What are you asking for again? More links from me and more tolerance for posting more opinion as fact?

As I have asked before, please check your facts before you post them. It is very frustrating to have someone arguing so vehemently, over and over again, thread after thread, with inaccurate and unlinked allegations.

You are guilty of this too for starters it was you that said the Smith family thought it was Gerry when it fact it was only Martin Smith and according to him his wife.

You aren't seriously suggesting that this unimportant little slip of the tongue is in some way comparable to the unlinked whoppers you've been posting?

:lol:

Sometimes it's hard to keep up with all the information and remember what's in the files and what came from the media.

If you can't keep the facts apart from the spin, maybe don't dispute every single post by others who can, and who post the facts, with links.

Please.


:please:

Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo

"At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching"

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm

I didn't say we can assume he was searching. I said the tapas waiter saw him searching (in his opinion as highlighted above) and we can assume that the time he saw Gerry was closer to 22.00 seeing as the alarm for a missing Madeleine hadn't be raised at 21.30.. Unless you can provide evidence to suggest that the alarm was raised earlier than around 22.00?

So we're going to ignore what the Smiths say in their police statements about the time and instead get our information from a documentary? Seriously?

Ignoring your personal insults and not rising to the bait. At least I can admit when i've made a mistake.

SapphireSteel
11-26-2012, 02:27 PM
Jeronimo Tomas Rodigues Salcedo

"At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching"

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm

I didn't say we can assume he was searching. I said the tapas waiter saw him searching (in his opinion as highlighted above) and we can assume that the time he saw Gerry was closer to 22.00 seeing as the alarm for a missing Madeleine hadn't be raised at 21.30.. Unless you can provide evidence to suggest that the alarm was raised earlier than around 22.00?

So we're going to ignore what the Smiths say in their police statements about the time and instead get our information from a documentary? Seriously?

Ignoring your personal insults and not rising to the bait. At least I can admit when i've made a mistake.

And that's not intended as a personal insult?

All I have asked for is accuracy and to not post opinion as fact.

:dunno:

PS..."get our information from a documentary"....that documentary was made and produced and written by Team McCann, so the "information" is straight from the source.

You clearly have not watched it, yet here you are arguing about it.

As for "Jeronimo Salcedo"....wtf????? One employee making assumptions, and it's now fact? (hint: the reason they are called "employees" is because they are working....usually very hard in a fully booked restaurant...they have no clue what is happening around them because the place is fully of people wandering about, vacating their seats, etc.)

Also, I am not often wrong, because I fact check before I make such profound, libellous statements...I am referring to the Team McCann troll posts now which have in the past two days only, blamed Amaral, the GNR, Raymond Hewlett, and of course the "abductor"...everyone indeed except where the blame firmly belongs, at the foot of two callous, irresponsible parents.

Unbelievable.

:cow:

gord
11-27-2012, 04:20 AM
I see the " troll " word is starting tio be used again - which I think is rather pathetic

That and the fact that there is now some " organised " Team Mccann . which is also very insulting

people have every right to post their views without being labeled trolls

fabgod
11-27-2012, 05:44 AM
I see the " troll " word is starting tio be used again - which I think is rather pathetic

That and the fact that there is now some " organised " Team Mccann . which is also very insulting

people have every right to post their views without being labeled trolls

Gord,
you are right, everyone does have the right to post without being labelled.
The problems arise when posters start to refer to themselves as "we" which does seem to be a sort of "gang" mentality imo.

It would be great if everyone on here could just debate constructively, look at the options and angles and form opinions, it doesnt really achieve much for the same points to be made repeatedly, often stated as fact without any actual support for that opinion (posted as fact)

gord
11-27-2012, 07:00 AM
Gord,
you are right, everyone does have the right to post without being labelled.
The problems arise when posters start to refer to themselves as "we" which does seem to be a sort of "gang" mentality imo.

It would be great if everyone on here could just debate constructively, look at the options and angles and form opinions, it doesnt really achieve much for the same points to be made repeatedly, often stated as fact without any actual support for that opinion (posted as fact)


I just see it in other forums ( non McCann ) where as soon as people cant be bothered to debate - the troll word comes out and then that is the slippery slope

I think that this case does polarise views and you do start to have two sets of posters who all debate the same issues - hence teh two camps - but to say we are organised groups cioming over from other forums !!

In this case noone can say they are correct - all we can do is debate and look at the posibiblities - the Police couldnt solve it and at the end of the day the case is still a mystery - we just dont know

we can have view points and my view is no more " correct " than anyone else -

fabgod
11-27-2012, 09:36 AM
I just see it in other forums ( non McCann ) where as soon as people cant be bothered to debate - the troll word comes out and then that is the slippery slope

I think that this case does polarise views and you do start to have two sets of posters who all debate the same issues - hence teh two camps - but to say we are organised groups cioming over from other forums !!

In this case noone can say they are correct - all we can do is debate and look at the posibiblities - the Police couldnt solve it and at the end of the day the case is still a mystery - we just dont know

we can have view points and my view is no more " correct " than anyone else -

Its only my opinion but, I don't think its a case of not being bothered to debate, I think its more a case of it's not possible to debate with some posters (both sides) as there is no discussion just the same outcome whatever the approach.
You are right, we don't know, none of us do, we only have the information that we have been given, we don't have the benefit of having been present at any of the interviews so we can only go off the written translations unlike the Police who were actually there (Portugal and the UK for the rogatories etc)
This case seems to really polarise two ways of thinking in some cases to the extreme, but at the end of the day as you rightly state, no views as outsiders are any more correct than any other. believers in the McCanns innocence are just as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as the posters who believe that the McCanns have some involvement in the case, neither can categorically prove their opinions one way or the other, its just a bit annoying imo when some seem to want to not debate, rather impress their views on the rest, when it is plainly obvious that that will never work for various reasons.

Again, it would be great if we could actually debate points, rather than argue who is right who is wrong, it never gets anywhere.

SapphireSteel
11-27-2012, 05:09 PM
I just see it in other forums ( non McCann ) where as soon as people cant be bothered to debate - the troll word comes out and then that is the slippery slope

I think that this case does polarise views and you do start to have two sets of posters who all debate the same issues - hence teh two camps - but to say we are organised groups cioming over from other forums !!
In this case noone can say they are correct - all we can do is debate and look at the posibiblities - the Police couldnt solve it and at the end of the day the case is still a mystery - we just dont know

we can have view points and my view is no more " correct " than anyone else -

Definition of troll -



In Internet slang, a troll ( /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog


Now let's see -

Yesterday 06:50 PM
gord
I see the " troll " word is starting tio be used again - which I think is rather patheticThat and the fact that there is now some " organised " Team Mccann . which is also very insulting

:waitasec: Inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic, I'd say.

These threads are becoming pro-McCann, and I for one am heartily sick of constantly pointing out the gigantic, repeated errors in those posts.

If I was going to be inflammatory, I would call them mistruths, or outright lies. As the same offenders are repeating the same misrepresentations on every thread (regardless of the actual topic), it fits the definition of trolling.

:dunno:

No one does know exactly what happened that night.

The problem starts when an alternate theory is consistently met with a barrage of derision, snark, inaccuracies and unlinked opinion as fact.

Impartially read the threads and note how many times the pro-McCann posts are either never supported by a link, or completely discounted by the next informed poster. It happens every single post, not just every now and then. Any thoughtful, linked and accurate response is completely ignored while the Pro McCann leaps on to the next load of baseless allegations.

No one can deny that the drubbing Goncalo Amaral recieves on these pages is beyond a normal impartial reaction. He was the Lead Investigator...I know of no case where a policeman is brought up by the defense with such monotony, as if it "proves" something....what? Exactly nothing about what happened to Madeleine, but still the trolling posts about Amaral continue. On every single thread.

:banghead:

Debate is wonderful, I have learnt a lot from these boards even inadvertently, but it has to be fair, and it has to be accurate and checkable. Otherwise it's not debate, it's propaganda. The pro-McCann posts are not fair, in that they do not stand up to examination or rebuttal. Regurgitating falsities and sledges then acting like a wounded innocent when someone points it out, is trolling behaviour. Not answering the responses, or requests for links, same.

I have asked for links that have never been given, had admissions of false posting even, yet mention the T word and all of a sudden the very fabric of the freedom of speech is threatened. By those of us who are actually concerned with the truth and links, no less. Mystifying.

I have no agenda except Madeleine. I don't passionately support the PJ or Amaral or my own comfort zone. What I do is consider the truth as published, and form an opinion. I have the right to expect anyone who is going to argue against my opinion so vehemently and with clockwork regularity to also be arguing from a place of knowledge and impartiality. That is not happening.

:waitasec:

I will keep on posting the truth on these threads. I have asked many times that those who critique my posts at least know the basic, undisputed facts of the case, many of which can be found in black and white in the PJ's final report. Unbiased assessment of the exact events of the evening, complete with signed statements, collected and analysed by experienced, qualified people who investigate these things for a living. It's amazing what you will find out if you read it.

People can post whatever opinion they like. What they cannot do, unchallenged, is make false and unlinked statements and allegations, especially in rebuttal.

If you are going to critique my posts, at least read the PJ report and the relevant msm first.

:please:

:cow:

Clutchbag
11-27-2012, 09:27 PM
the person who used the word WE started all this

There is no WE if you are posting your own thoughts and views, ergo the use of WE suggests a group, simples

SapphireSteel
11-27-2012, 11:04 PM
Yeah, maybe not organised though...I'm taking that back.

More like disorganised. :D