Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 179

Thread: The McCanns' Own Words

  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    The mccannfiles is a poor site to use in my opinion, and much of the media material about the mccanns has been proven to be flase. Several british papers admitted they wrote untrue stories. And translation is a very fine art just because someone can speak, read and write two languages does not mean they are in anyway qualified to act as an interpretor or translator of the two. People normally have to have qualifications in the foreign language and pg qualifications as translators or interpretors. that is one thing I did not agree with - the use of Robert Murat to act as interpretor as he had no qualifications I believe.

    And no I do not think it would be fine if a toddler fell off the balcony, but I can see why some people might think as they were on the ground floor they were fine. i disagree with the mccanns leaving the children, anything could have happened aside from abduction, and I thin much of what the mccanns have writtne regarding them thinking it is fine is really them trying to justify it to themselves as well as others.
    I think the biggest supporting factor for an abduction is that there had been other incidents not long before Madeleine disappeared of tourist children being abused in their beds by an intruder all within an hour of the McCann flat. There was also another little girl who disappeared three years before madeleine only seven miles away. her mother was imprisoned for her abduction, but she sustained very nasty injuries whilst being questioned at the police station. the police claimed she fell, she claimed she was tortured and enough evidence was found to prosecute the police. However they were acquited, but it turned out afterwards the officer in charge had fabricated statements in favour of the police. he was convicted and got a suspended prison sentence. he was also in charge of the McCann case where he claimed once again it must be the mother. I think the fact that in a three year period there was one disappearence, and several intrusions into tourist flats by a paedophile all within just an hour of where madeleine disappeared is too great a coincidence especially given that the Mccanns had the most secluded flat, and the tapas bar had put a notice in their booking book that everyone could see saying there would be young children left alone. I hate to think it, but I have a suspicion that Madeleine may have been killed -perhaps accidently smothered-in her room by an intruder, and that is why witnesses (jane Tanner and the smith family) saw a man carrying a child who despite the cold and the timeframes remained looking as if she was asleep. That would also explain the odd way she was being carried -over both arms, and not carried against the chest as would be more normal. I think it may well have been a planned intrusion, but an unplanned death and abduction. I hate to think that, and I hope she was abducted by someone who just wanted a child, but given the other intrusions I cannot help thinking that the intruder theory fits.

    Plus there was the whole casa Pia scandal that had been going on for years and the police had manage to lose evidence in that case too. I do not beleive in conspiracies as such, but I do believe there was an attitude that paedophilia did not happen in Portugal in much the same way people used to ignore abuse because priests do not abuse children.

    As for the cadaver dogs the handler said that alerts mean nothing. The dogs are used to find bodies, not to say bodies were once there. the same dogs I believe alerted to what turned out to be coconut shell in a care home.
    The mccannfiles is like a library of media reports and other material for referenceand research, nowhere does it state all info contained is true. That is all there is to it. In fact its an excellent site to use to see how the media change their stories and manipulate facts.

    You say the evidence for abduction in this case is the fact that children within an hour away were attacked in their beds. Do you have something to back this up?

    You say another girl wentmissing and her mother was tortured. She and her brother confessed IIRC to the murder before and in the prescence of her lawyer. IITC her inmates beat her up. That is what happens the world over to inmates in for child murder. The officer in charge was not as you state convicted of fabricating evidence. He merely signed off a report from his officers as to events as he wasnt there at the time, despite that woman saying he was and ordered the torture.!They have had five appeals quashed. What does that tell you?But let us stick to the facts in THIS case shall we? and evidence not supposition of an abduction and barking at other cases.

    Mr Grime never said the dog alerts mean nothing, so why do you say that? Got anything to back that assertion up?If dog alerts mean nothing they wouldnt be used by forces around the world. You are wrong in stating also that they are only good at discovering physical remains as these dogs are used and have been successful at alerting to the remnant scent of human cadaver odour in places where the body has been removed both in actual cases where a body was found after and in studies. The coconut shell story is a red herring. These dogs have never in their history been maligned before the mccann and jersey case or after. That should make you wonder. They continue to be deployed by the UK and and other countries successfully.


    You say some people would think a 10 foot drop off a balcony would be safe. Oh well.

    If you have a problem with translations you need to say what the problem is instead of just hurling out the translation is wrong.
    Last edited by saggymoon; 06-20-2012 at 12:47 AM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  3. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by LucyOso View Post
    BBM. I was the one who suggested that perhaps while this was translated verbatum or google. Cultural norms and mores make huge differences in what a statement can mean or how words are applied in context of any situation. Kinesics or body language varies from culture to culture as well. So what we may perceive as suspicious or strange may not be odd for a different culture or country.
    Hello, where did you get the idea in the first place that the official police files were translated via google? Because as far as mccannpjfiles.co.uk is concerned it was not.

  4. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by LucyOso View Post
    Actually, I was the one who stated this. Not sure why Brit1981 is "accused" of my posts...anyway...as an American living in a ex-British commonwealth country...even "english" words have various meanings. Here are a few links and books about just how different British and American english are and how the same words and gestures can have very different meanings depending on the country.

    Basic Wikipedia

    List of words having different meanings in British and American English: A–L - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    List of words having different meanings in British and American English: M–Z - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Academic books...

    http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.txt

    All I am saying is it is really easy to judge and not try to find some empathy.
    Yes it is easy to judge, but to blanket state any discrepancy must be due to poor translation without proving it is so is a different kettle of fish.

  5. #79
    BTW Brit81

    Is there any particular reason you think the Mccanns could not have staged an abduction after an innocent accident, in order to protect themselves and their remaining family? potential prison etc. No one would fault them for that.
    In fact a top yk forensic detective suggested tgis might be the case
    Do you actually believe everything they say?

    What do you think about this footage taken a few days after the abduction, a few days after gerrymccann was on the blower to friends and family saying he thinks paedos took his child, even if it wasnt

    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_u...?v=9VlS-gO5Ask

    some people think this is a govt experiment, well i can relate to that too as this case is so bizarre

    Oh another question brit81 you keep asking where people are getting their info from as if its flawed or biased, but you have not said where you get your info from, pray tell
    Last edited by saggymoon; 06-20-2012 at 02:05 AM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  7. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    First of all the only claim I have to legally back up is the one about the officer as I have made a statement against him. The others I legally do not as I have not made a defamatory statement about anyone. If for instance I had accused the mccanns of lying, being involved in the disappearence then I would have to provide actual proof of what I was saying. the mccanns would have a legal right to either hold websleuths legally responsible and make them prove the statements, or get a court order to websleuths for my ip address and then take me to court. I would either have to show the statements were not defmatory, or provide proof (and the proof must be reliable, if i was just reporting any rubbish that someone else had put up then that would not be a defense), or show it is fair comment i.e it is just my opinion, but it is unlikely that accusing someone of being involved in a crime would come under fair comment rules just because one put the words "in my opinion".

    here are my references

    Amaral conviction
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8064671.stm
    http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15287142

    reliability of the sniffer dogs - links describing how grimes and eddie no longer have a uk license, and are no longer used by the police, and false alerts in jersey (eddie alerted to coconut shell), and quote from grimes report

    http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15959107
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...ey/7723860.stm
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1JuPiWWaT

    quote from martin grimes "There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
    It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."


    other attacks and disappearences

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sappeared.html (near end of article)

    http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/1315666

    http://issuu.com/canarianweekly/docs...w&pageNumber=1 (in gran canaria, but some have said there may be a link due to the timing)

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/83773089...sh-paedophiles (as above)

    casa pia (and some related to madeleine mccann)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eine-case.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...dprotection.uk

    so all in all we have a police officer with a conviction and suspended sentence for fabricating evidence in a case related to a missing child, a sniffer dog and handler that have made false alerts, and no longer (at time of press of links) are used by the UK and no longer have a license to practice there, the handler admitting mistakes can be made and also that alerts mean nothing without other evidence, two missing girls within three miles, and several other intrusions and attacks within an hour, a third disappearence in Gran canaria just two months before Madeleine disappeared, and two paedophiles who have been mentioned in that case were working in holiday villas and have been reported as travelling in spain and portugal in 2007. Plus a huge paedophile scandal that points to child abuse being ignored.

  8. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    First of all the only claim I have to legally back up is the one about the officer as I have made a statement against him. The others I legally do not as I have not made a defamatory statement about anyone. If for instance I had accused the mccanns of lying, being involved in the disappearence then I would have to provide actual proof of what I was saying. the mccanns would have a legal right to either hold websleuths legally responsible and make them prove the statements, or get a court order to websleuths for my ip address and then take me to court. I would either have to show the statements were not defmatory, or provide proof (and the proof must be reliable, if i was just reporting any rubbish that someone else had put up then that would not be a defense), or show it is fair comment i.e it is just my opinion, but it is unlikely that accusing someone of being involved in a crime would come under fair comment rules just because one put the words "in my opinion".

    here are my references

    Amaral conviction
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8064671.stm
    http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15287142

    reliability of the sniffer dogs - links describing how grimes and eddie no longer have a uk license, and are no longer used by the police, and false alerts in jersey (eddie alerted to coconut shell), and quote from grimes report

    http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15959107
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...ey/7723860.stm
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1JuPiWWaT

    quote from martin grimes "There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.
    It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."


    other attacks and disappearences

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sappeared.html (near end of article)

    http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/1315666

    http://issuu.com/canarianweekly/docs...w&pageNumber=1 (in gran canaria, but some have said there may be a link due to the timing)

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/83773089...sh-paedophiles (as above)

    casa pia (and some related to madeleine mccann)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eine-case.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...dprotection.uk

    so all in all we have a police officer with a conviction and suspended sentence for fabricating evidence in a case related to a missing child, a sniffer dog and handler that have made false alerts, and no longer (at time of press of links) are used by the UK and no longer have a license to practice there, the handler admitting mistakes can be made and also that alerts mean nothing without other evidence, two missing girls within three miles, and several other intrusions and attacks within an hour, a third disappearence in Gran canaria just two months before Madeleine disappeared, and two paedophiles who have been mentioned in that case were working in holiday villas and have been reported as travelling in spain and portugal in 2007. Plus a huge paedophile scandal that points to child abuse being ignored.
    That's not good enough, it's all from newspapers which are notoriously unreliable at best. Re the dog, you originally asserted dog alerts mean nothing period. Which is untrue. As for a licence running out days before I doubt the dogs abilities suddenly stop on the date lol. There is no evidence of false alerts, the handler himself states as much, he is the only reliable source.

  9. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    So you are saying when the dog alerted to what experts claimed was coconut shell, the experts were wrong and the police should have listened to the spaniel? Do you then think that there really were murders at the jersey care home because eddie alerted to somethign and it therefore must be a body, and not a coconut shell like kew claimed?

    And I do not think the license running out is so much the problem so much as the fact it was not renewed and the police will no longer employ him.

    And are you saying the newspapers and bbc are lying about Amaral and that he does not have a criminal conviction?

    And are you saying that people should ignore sites like the bbc and only take evidence from anonymous websites?

  10. #83
    QUOTE=brit1981;8069455]So you are saying when the dog alerted to what experts claimed was coconut shell, the experts were wrong and the police should have listened to the spaniel? Do you then think that there really were murders at the jersey care home because eddie alerted to somethign and it therefore must be a body, and not a coconut shell like kew claimed?

    And I do not think the license running out is so much the problem so much as the fact it was not renewed and the police will no longer employ him.

    And are you saying the newspapers and bbc are lying about Amaral and that he does not have a criminal conviction?

    And are you saying that people should ignore sites like the bbc and only take evidence from anonymous websites?[/QUOTE]

    mr grime left the south yorkshire police after his work in pdl, his own training on the dogs and testing methods were more stringent than those required to obtain a licence. where is your proof that police wont employ him? he is now freelance and he has been deployed by british and irish police POST PDL and Jersey and also by the fbi on several cases so your argument falls down yet again. his dog findings have been verified in every single case since then since either by a body being found or a confession made since.

    The coconut story is a red herring.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  12. #84
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    I have not heard of him being used by the British police since his license run out (that would be illegal as you need to be licensed otherwise anyone can claim there dog is an expert sniffer dog), look at the links. I have never heard anyone say Grimes standards are higher than those of the police, apart from Mr Grimes himself. As far as I am aware no other body has adopted grimes standards, and he is the only person who uses these standards, and they are not used in the UK. He has worked in jeresey, but only because that is outwith the Uk, since then he has never been employed by the UK as he has no license and according to the police is therefore deemed not competant. If you look at the links, you will see that eddie alerted in an old jersey care home, and specificlly alerted to a piece of old coconut shell, which was believed to be bone, but upon examination turne dout to be coconut shell.
    If his standards are more stringent that those required for a license, i do not understand why his license was not renewed.
    Eddie alerting to a coconut shell certainly was a red herring, as it could huge speculation a murder had occurred in a care home. the investiagtion cost tens of thousands, including the thousands Grimes charged for his services.
    Can you provide links for the cases since PDL where Grimes has been employed by the British police, and where his findings have been vereified, and where his standards have been said to be more stringent than the police (as I said the only person I have seen saying that is Grimes when asked about not getting his licensed renewed).

  13. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    also you said the officer in charge, amaral, was never charge with fabricating evidence, but according to the bbc he was not only charged and convicted but received a suspended sentence. Do you think the BBc are incorrect?

  14. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    also you said the officer in charge, amaral, was never charge with fabricating evidence, but according to the bbc he was not only charged and convicted but received a suspended sentence. Do you think the BBc are incorrect?
    the bbc wouldnt know a fala from a f*** as has been proven and to which they admitted and offered an apology. Next.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  16. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    I have not heard of him being used by the British police since his license run out (that would be illegal as you need to be licensed otherwise anyone can claim there dog is an expert sniffer dog), look at the links. I have never heard anyone say Grimes standards are higher than those of the police, apart from Mr Grimes himself. As far as I am aware no other body has adopted grimes standards, and he is the only person who uses these standards, and they are not used in the UK. He has worked in jeresey, but only because that is outwith the Uk, since then he has never been employed by the UK as he has no license and according to the police is therefore deemed not competant. If you look at the links, you will see that eddie alerted in an old jersey care home, and specificlly alerted to a piece of old coconut shell, which was believed to be bone, but upon examination turne dout to be coconut shell.
    If his standards are more stringent that those required for a license, i do not understand why his license was not renewed.
    Eddie alerting to a coconut shell certainly was a red herring, as it could huge speculation a murder had occurred in a care home. the investiagtion cost tens of thousands, including the thousands Grimes charged for his services.
    Can you provide links for the cases since PDL where Grimes has been employed by the British police, and where his findings have been vereified, and where his standards have been said to be more stringent than the police (as I said the only person I have seen saying that is Grimes when asked about not getting his licensed renewed).
    I really wouldnt lose sleep over it if i were you. mr grime has been used several times post summer 2007 by both british irish and usa police and helped solve cases, therefore if just cannot be illegal as you assert to have used him LOL, google it as i am not going to do your donkey work for you. your problem not mine. Carry on trying to beat them down, you will never succeeed because all your facts are wrong. Lids gone down now on the ignore. Phew.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  18. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    so you are saying that Amaral does not have a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence?
    Also grimes does not have a license to practice in the UK and the police issued a staement saying he was no longer used by them.
    And who I am trying to beat down.
    the fac t is Amaral has a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence, all people who use sniffer dogs must have a license to practice in the UK (hence it raised eyebrows when he was used in jeresey, although as this is outside the Uk he can practice without a license), and eddie has made false alerts, including alerting to a piece of coconut shell!
    But earlier you asked me to provide lins, and I was interested in what you were saying about grimes standards being considered higher than the licensing requirements, what bodies claimed this as I have only heard grimes claiming this when ased about his license status? Also what cases do you now of that he has been employed in the UK since his license was not renewed?

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    so you are saying that Amaral does not have a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence?
    Also grimes does not have a license to practice in the UK and the police issued a staement saying he was no longer used by them.
    And who I am trying to beat down.
    the fac t is Amaral has a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence, all people who use sniffer dogs must have a license to practice in the UK (hence it raised eyebrows when he was used in jeresey, although as this is outside the Uk he can practice without a license), and eddie has made false alerts, including alerting to a piece of coconut shell!
    But earlier you asked me to provide lins, and I was interested in what you were saying about grimes standards being considered higher than the licensing requirements, what bodies claimed this as I have only heard grimes claiming this when ased about his license status? Also what cases do you now of that he has been employed in the UK since his license was not renewed?
    The fact is that it was the British Police who first developed evidence that the McCanns were involved. Grime and his dogs were supplied and paid for by British Police, as were the services of FSS Ltd.

    It is also undisputed that for some reason, evidence that the British Police had discovered indicating the McCanns, was withheld from the PJ.

    It is further undisputed that this case has been afforded some inexplicable political involvement between the UK, the US and Portugal. As a direct result, the PJ have closed the case and refused to reopen it, unless someone comes up with new evidence.

    It has to be asked why the governments of all three countries would be involved in a missing child case at all. Children go missing every single day, with no reaction from their governments at all, let alone at DIPLOMATIC level. It smacks of political interferance and subterfuge and I for one would like this explained.

    Until it is, discussions focusing on trivia like who barked at which coconut, are fairly irrelevant.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  21. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    241
    Just re-reading through these messages, and realizing that the McCanns left the door unlocked so that if Madeleine woke up again she could come out and find them.

    So, rather than arrange for one of the caregivers to look after the children, or give up a night of drinking with friends to stay with the children, it seemed like good parenting to these people to just leave the door open so that this very young child could come and find them if she woke up? In the dark. With a roadway with cars presumably driving up and down, a swimming pool nearby, and all kinds of strangers walking around. Would she even know where they were? Did they tell her?

    I know, being terrible parents doesn't mean that they have something to do with the child's death.

    But it does make me curious about why Kate immediately told the people at the restaurant that Madeleine had been taken. Why didn't she assume that she'd woken up again and come to find them and (as would be totally understandable with a child so young) gotten lost? Since that was the reason they left the door unlocked.

    Tink

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Tink For This Useful Post:


  23. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Tink View Post
    Just re-reading through these messages, and realizing that the McCanns left the door unlocked so that if Madeleine woke up again she could come out and find them.

    So, rather than arrange for one of the caregivers to look after the children, or give up a night of drinking with friends to stay with the children, it seemed like good parenting to these people to just leave the door open so that this very young child could come and find them if she woke up? In the dark. With a roadway with cars presumably driving up and down, a swimming pool nearby, and all kinds of strangers walking around. Would she even know where they were? Did they tell her?

    I know, being terrible parents doesn't mean that they have something to do with the child's death.

    But it does make me curious about why Kate immediately told the people at the restaurant that Madeleine had been taken. Why didn't she assume that she'd woken up again and come to find them and (as would be totally understandable with a child so young) gotten lost? Since that was the reason they left the door unlocked.

    Tink
    The McCanns have never stated they left the patio doors unlocked so madeleine could find them. They said they left the patio door unlocked to make it easier for them to pop in and out. Also at the time after the patio doors, one had to open two gates to get onto the road, and kate says these were both shut and latched when she went into the flat, and the patio doors were closed. So a three year old would not shut the patio doors behind her, and shut and latch two gates behind her. Plus I think the window and shutters being open made Kate think an outsider had opened them, as neither she nor Gerry had opened them, and a toddler could not open them.

  24. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,718
    Why did the abductor shut and latch gates and patio doors behind him? How easy is it to do while carrying a child?

  25. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    Why did the abductor shut and latch gates and patio doors behind him? How easy is it to do while carrying a child?
    No-one knows if he did. He (assuming it is a he) may not have used the patio doors. The window and shutters were open, and there was some problem with the front door, which according to previous occupants meant it could be opened even when locked and with the key in. Plus the other break ins had no sign of forced entry, which according to some people made people think that whoever did break in had some sort of key. The front door and the window were both unlit and faced on to a not busy car park, so it might have made sense to use these rather than the patio where there was more of a risk. Or the abductor could have used the patio to gain entry, automatically closed the gates behind him (which as there was a breeze might make sense as if they were caught in the breeze they could make a noise) and left from one of the other exits. With three entry/exit points all fairly secluded there is just no way of knowing.

    But what I notice about what the previous occupants said about the lock was how lax some people are on holiday. If I found out someone could get in through a door which was lcoked and had a key in, I would have been straight down the manager demanding he makes it more secure. But these occupants just said they never did find out what was wrong with the door. Which makes me think they did not make a fuss about it.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:


  27. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,718
    Didn't Jane Tanner say it was a he?

    Which door being used makes the most sense considering where JT says she saw the man carrying a child?

  28. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    636
    The more I read about this apartment and the doors, windows, location, badly lit etc,
    makes me wonder how anyone could think it was perfectly safe?

    Families with children, not being concerned about locking doors, dodgy windows, no listening services, it would be laughable if it wan't so sad!

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to fabgod For This Useful Post:


  30. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    fab,
    The Mccanns were using their own listening service. That is all these listening services are, a nanny (often a teenager with a childcare qualification) listening outside the door for crying every half an hour. mark warner have since stopped offering this service (there was also a case in Egypt where a child got out of her room, but the alarm was not raised because the nanny had not heard anything), but other places still offer them

    Bit i think people (at least some people) do get lax on holiday. Like the previous occupants not getting the front door made more secure (.as far as I am aware the mccanns did not know the front door was not secure, and the window could be opened from the outside).

    Assuming that JT did see madeleine and her abductor, and not just a father and child who has been too scared to come forward, it would make most sense for him to have used the front door, as JT would have seen him coming down the steps, but she saw him coming from the car park direction. Plus if this was the abductor then he left not long after Gerry so it would make more sense to leave the opposite direction (assuming he had seen that they used the patio door to check on the children).

    If the window was opened as an emergency escape route the it does not matter if it would be noticed or not as the person was using it to avoid getting physically caught and then arrested, and just need to jump out and run quickly. If he had been in the room and one of the parents had suddenly come in, he would have needed to get out quick regardless of being seen by an onlooker, and the bedroom door would have been blocked to him so it woudl have made sense to have the window open just in case.

  31. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16,718
    IDk... I think it would have made more sense to me to spend the time needed to fiddle with the window getting the hell outta there. I'd make an alternative escape route for myself if I wanted to do something that takes a lot of time such as search the room for valuables but if I just go in, grab a kid and get out I would just make sure the parents aren't on the way when I enter and then run away as fast as possible.

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Donjeta For This Useful Post:


  33. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Donjeta View Post
    IDk... I think it would have made more sense to me to spend the time needed to fiddle with the window getting the hell outta there. I'd make an alternative escape route for myself if I wanted to do something that takes a lot of time such as search the room for valuables but if I just go in, grab a kid and get out I would just make sure the parents aren't on the way when I enter and then run away as fast as possible.
    It depends I suppose. It is possible they opened the window from the outside, and then entered the flat through another entry point. But maybe someone who is an experienced intruer, or is a bit cooler would not rush in and go, but take their time before to prepare an escape just in case. Its all very well watching the parents leave, but what if gerry had suddenly popped back for something just after he left. Its a huge risk, that could be largely eliminated by having the open window.

  34. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    fab,
    The Mccanns were using their own listening service. That is all these listening services are, a nanny (often a teenager with a childcare qualification) listening outside the door for crying every half an hour. mark warner have since stopped offering this service (there was also a case in Egypt where a child got out of her room, but the alarm was not raised because the nanny had not heard anything), but other places still offer them

    Bit i think people (at least some people) do get lax on holiday. Like the previous occupants not getting the front door made more secure (.as far as I am aware the mccanns did not know the front door was not secure, and the window could be opened from the outside).

    Assuming that JT did see madeleine and her abductor, and not just a father and child who has been too scared to come forward, it would make most sense for him to have used the front door, as JT would have seen him coming down the steps, but she saw him coming from the car park direction. Plus if this was the abductor then he left not long after Gerry so it would make more sense to leave the opposite direction (assuming he had seen that they used the patio door to check on the children).

    If the window was opened as an emergency escape route the it does not matter if it would be noticed or not as the person was using it to avoid getting physically caught and then arrested, and just need to jump out and run quickly. If he had been in the room and one of the parents had suddenly come in, he would have needed to get out quick regardless of being seen by an onlooker, and the bedroom door would have been blocked to him so it woudl have made sense to have the window open just in case.
    Just been reading about Jane Tanners sighting, she didnt tell the McCanns about the man (probably carrying a child - Gerry McCanns press statement),

    The man was 10 to 15 feet in front of her, by her own admission, it was dark, again by her own admission,
    If a man walks in front of you at a distance of 10 to 15 feet, you would be in no doubt of where he came from, its not even the length of two beds away from you.

    Jane Tanner didnt mention the sighting to the McCanns, only telling Fiona Payne, who it seems also didnt pass on this information?
    Jane Tanner informed the PJ at about 11.15pm, over an hour after Madeleine was first discovered to be missing.

    Jane Tanner didnt see the mans face as it was turned away, but says the child was lolling in the mans arms, she says that she saw Mr Wilkins and Gerry McCann but they didnt see her and they didnt see the man possibly carrying a child.
    There are so many discrepancies in Jane Tanners statements, that I dont think we can assume she saw the man to be honest.

    As for people being lax on holiday, yes i think you can make an argument for that, but you could also quite as easily make an argument that many if not most people are more aware of security on holiday, in a different country, their valuables and passports are in the apartment (not to mention some peoples children), so its an assumption but not really any more or less valid than any other assumption.

    Regarding listening services, its not really of any interest that Mark Warner subsequently stopped using this service, they have probably made a lot of changes to proceedures since.

    The listening service the MCCanns were using, wasnt a listening service, it was a checking service by their accounts (and thats all we have to go on),
    as with any system, it was flawed in that there was always going to be a timeframe where the children were vulnerable, but that is the chance that they took.
    My point is that the area was not safe, the doors were left unlocked or were possibly not secure, there had been an issue with the shutters, they were upsteps, they couldnt see the apartment, the area was badly lit, you yourself stated in one of your posts that they thought it was safe, safe to some but wreckless to many.

    Kate McCann apparently stated that she felt like they were being watched, the children had been crying on earlier nights, yet they still felt it was safe to leave them, I personally don't know what it would have taken for them to feel it wasn't safe!

    Another question that maybe you can answer Brit1981, Russell O Brien checked on his children and found one of them had been sick, he then asked a friend to get Jane Tanner to go back to the apartment and help him, this was the trip that led to her seeing the man probably carrying the child, do you know who that friend was?

  35. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    636
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    It depends I suppose. It is possible they opened the window from the outside, and then entered the flat through another entry point. But maybe someone who is an experienced intruer, or is a bit cooler would not rush in and go, but take their time before to prepare an escape just in case. Its all very well watching the parents leave, but what if gerry had suddenly popped back for something just after he left. Its a huge risk, that could be largely eliminated by having the open window.
    Just for clarity, could the window be opened from the outside or just the shutter?

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who was listening to the McCanns?
    By Isabella in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-19-2009, 03:51 PM
  2. UK tabloids apologize to McCanns
    By hipmamajen in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 03:47 AM
  3. Will the McCanns Willing Go to Portugal?
    By Salem in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 07-20-2008, 02:44 PM
  4. Why do the McCanns care about us?
    By hcc2007 in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 04:18 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 08:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •