Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kimster

Former Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
58,124
Reaction score
405
Website
www.ufo2001.com
We are going to continue with one thread for awhile. It's a lot easier to manage since we don't have one assigned moderator for this area.

The snark factor has been pretty high in Madeleine's forum lately. Start treating each other with respect or you might find yourself on the outside looking in.


Please continue here and remember the rules. You can find them right here: The Rules - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community AND don't overlook these!!!!

Victim Friendly

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civl and constructive way and ONLY IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Additionally, sleuthing family members that are not suspect is not allowed. Don't make random accusations or post personal information (even if it is public) like parking tickets, address, or first and last names of all their relatives and their neighbors. Also, never "bash" or attack them, or accuse them of involvement. However that does not mean that family members cannot come into discussion as the facts and issues of the case are discussed.


Social Networks

Regarding Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other social networking or blog websites: Links may be used to direct posters to view something on a social networking page. But postings on social networking sites are not considered fact; they are rumor. Copying and pasting, or taking screen caps, directly from these pages is not allowed. Paraphrasing is okay. (Exception: If the Twitter or Facebook post belongs to a verified news station, it may be copied. But a link should still be provided.)

Also, social networking pages may only be linked if they are directly related to a case, i.e. the victim or suspect. We don't want to post to someone's mother, brother, employer, milkman, or postal carrier just because they know the main player. We also NEVER link to minor's pages (unless they are the victim). And be sure that the page actually belongs to the person being discussed. Do not link to someone if you are not 100% sure it is the correct person. And if a social networking is set to private and you get in the back way, you may not post what you find. Private means private!

MINORS: Websleuths.com™ does not allow the naming of, or photographs of, minors (children under the age of 18) on the Site unless the child is a missing or deceased person or where law enforcement has identified the minor as a perpetrator of a crime and the minor will be tried as an adult. If a missing child is found and it is learned that such minor was the victim of child exploitation, references to the child’s name and likeness will be removed, and further posting of such information will not be allowed.
 
Thank you for the new thread kimster.


I haven't had the time to follow the latest developments. Can someone please tell me what changed in the timeline that makes a significant difference to the theory of the parents being or not being involved in Madeleine disappearance?
 
Thank you for the new thread kimster.


I haven't had the time to follow the latest developments. Can someone please tell me what changed in the timeline that makes a significant difference to the theory of the parents being or not being involved in Madeleine disappearance?

...and please note that the timeline thread was left open in the stickies for anyone who would be kind enough to keep it updated. :tyou:
 
Ok noticed on the media link that the tanner sighting at 9:15 has been discounted. 2 witnesses saw someone carrying a child at 10. Isn't that when Kate went to check on the children? What time did the others check on the children? I thought it was 15 - 20 minute intervals each taking turns. Wouldn't one of them have come face to face with the abductor?
 
One thing i do find strange. The lead detective in the case was convinced the child had died in the apartment.

In cooperation with the Judiciary Police the English authorities brought, at the time, two sniffer dogs who identified cadaver odour in the car rented by the McCann couple.

These dogs were highly trained in their field and were used to indicate cadavar and blood.

These dogs were very expensive and I find it strange that the British Authorities would sanction their use unless they too felt the child had died or had an accident in the apartment. They are used to find bodies and regardless of what people say have been instrumental in lots of cases even helping the FBI.

Just seems odd to me.

As soon as the dogs more or less confirmed what the lead detective was thinking he was removed from the case........

Even though the dogs indicated in the apartment and picked the McCanns rental car out of a load of other cars parked in the same place.

very very odd.
 
Ok noticed on the media link that the tanner sighting at 9:15 has been discounted. 2 witnesses saw someone carrying a child at 10. Isn't that when Kate went to check on the children? What time did the others check on the children? I thought it was 15 - 20 minute intervals each taking turns. Wouldn't one of them have come face to face with the abductor?

Hi hun, sadly it was always discounted by the PJ way back in 2007, they were more interested in the Smith sightings.

The timeline is the same there is no change, its just that the window of opportunity of an abductor has changed to 45 minutes, unless you of course take out all the checks in the meantime which would narrow it down to about 15.
 
Hi hun, sadly it was always discounted by the PJ way back in 2007, they were more interested in the Smith sightings.

The timeline is the same there is no change, its just that the window of opportunity of an abductor has changed to 45 minutes, unless you of course take out all the checks in the meantime which would narrow it down to about 15.

Really? How did I not know that? So what was the purpose of all those sketches? Did they find the man? Thanks for your reply
 
One thing i do find strange. The lead detective in the case...............

You can stop here...
The previous lead detective on the case has a criminal record ;) i.e. he was charged with a crime in Portugal. I doubt he would ever be allowed in Portugal to work on any other case. Fulstop.
Now the new lead detective on the case thinks she still might be alive
 
One thing i do find strange. The lead detective in the case was convinced the child had died in the apartment.

In cooperation with the Judiciary Police the English authorities brought, at the time, two sniffer dogs who identified cadaver odour in the car rented by the McCann couple.

These dogs were highly trained in their field and were used to indicate cadavar and blood.

These dogs were very expensive and I find it strange that the British Authorities would sanction their use unless they too felt the child had died or had an accident in the apartment. They are used to find bodies and regardless of what people say have been instrumental in lots of cases even helping the FBI.

Just seems odd to me.

As soon as the dogs more or less confirmed what the lead detective was thinking he was removed from the case........

Even though the dogs indicated in the apartment and picked the McCanns rental car out of a load of other cars parked in the same place.

very very odd.

How soon after Madeleine's disappearance did the parents rent the car?
 
You can stop here...
The previous lead detective on the case has a criminal record ;) i.e. he was charged with a crime in Portugal. I doubt he would ever be allowed in Portugal to work on any other case. Fulstop.
Now the new lead detective on the case thinks she still might be alive

I don't find his criminal record relevant to this case unless it involved a missing child. What was he charged with? I don't think we should throw out the entire investigation (the beginning). I'm sure there was a lot done that is still being considered including the cadaver dogs. It is what it is.imo
 
I don't find his criminal record relevant to this case unless it involved a missing child.

It does involve a missing child but not this one.. it was his previous case of a missing child
 
It does involve a missing child but not this one.. it was his previous case of a missing child

Can you elaborate? I think it's important to know what he was charged with. Did he tamper with evidence? Did he accuse the wrong people?
 
Can you elaborate? I think it's important to know what he was charged with. Did he tamper with evidence? Did he accuse the wrong people?

Well, the same Goncalo Amaral <modsnip> is charged with fiddling with the evidence of another missing child and covering of beating up the suspect, the mother of the child to make her confess the crime.

[</modsnip>url<modsnip>="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joana_Cipriano"]Murder of Joana Cipriano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/</modsnip>url<modsnip>]

A child protection specialist, Mark Williams-Thomas, who believes that Joana's and Madeleine's disappearances are related, commented that the disappearance of two children unknown to each other, within a period of four years in a seven-mile radius, would be a huge coincidence, especially considering that "Portugal is a small country with very, very few abductions</modsnip>
 
Well, the same Goncalo Amaral <modsnip> is charged with fiddling with the evidence of another missing child and covering of beating up the suspect, the mother of the child to make her confess the crime.

Murder of Joana Cipriano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A child protection specialist, Mark Williams-Thomas, who believes that Joana's and Madeleine's disappearances are related, commented that the disappearance of two children unknown to each other, within a period of four years in a seven-mile radius, would be a huge coincidence, especially considering that "Portugal is a small country with very, very few abductions
Her mother and uncle were charged and convicted. Amaral wasn't the one who beat up a confession. He allegedly covered up for his colleague. Sorry I don't find the 2 cases related at all. BTW. I don't worship Amaral. I just want the truth!!
 
Regarding the other missing children from Portugal, someone I think Donjela asked for the link few days ago.. I found an old link here on this site under the Photos section, an old blog which researched the missing children in Portugal.
Some of the photos and infos of missing children can be found there, on the blog.

http://minnea.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/portugal-dangerous-place-for-children.html

Yes sadly children go missing in every country. it doesn't necessarily mean they are abducted. The youngest one was abducted by her daddy and never found again. Wish they could all be found safe but sadly that's just wishful thinking ;(
 
You can stop here...
The previous lead detective on the case has a criminal record ;) i.e. he was charged with a crime in Portugal. I doubt he would ever be allowed in Portugal to work on any other case. Fulstop.
Now the new lead detective on the case thinks she still might be alive

I'm not at all familiar with Portuguese law but was this previous lead detective found guilty of the crime he was charged with or is a charge in Portugal considered proof of guilt? TIA
 
haden;9909067
Well, the same Goncalo Amaral <modsnip> is charged with fiddling with the evidence of another missing child and covering of beating up the suspect, the mother of the child to make her confess the crime

<modsnip>

Second, he was accused of covering up a beating that a confessed child killer said was inflicted upon her by other officers. Amaral was not even present at the time of the alleged beating.

Third, what does that have to do with his theory that the McCanns covered up the accidental death of their daughter? Mark Furhman was proven in court to be both a racist and a liar. In my book that makes him a reprehensible human being. That does not, however, prove OJ innocent.

Furhman's "theory" that OJ was guilty as sin is still 100% correct in my opinion.

One has nothing to do with the other.
 
I'm not at all familiar with Portuguese law but was this previous lead detective found guilty of the crime he was charged with or is a charge in Portugal considered proof of guilt? TIA

Yes he was charged in Portugal, first he was arguido, then charged with crime and then found guilty.
So, he is a criminal, known for fiddling with the evidence, this is what he is found guilty of in his own country.
As you know, he is very manipulative and vocal, he can say this or that but the fact is that he has been convicted and for me that is enough to move away from anything to do with him.
Making millions out of Madeleine's case was his next step.
<modsnip>
 
haden;9909067

First, I don't know of anyone here that "worships" Amaral.

Second, he was accused of covering up a beating that a confessed child killer said was inflicted upon her by other officers. Amaral was not even present at the time of the alleged beating.

Third, what does that have to do with his theory that the McCanns covered up the accidental death of their daughter? Mark Furhman was proven in court to be both a racist and a liar. In my book that makes him a reprehensible human being. That does not, however, prove OJ innocent.

Furhman's "theory" that OJ was guilty as sin is still 100% correct in my opinion.

One has nothing to do with the other.

No, he was not ONLY accused, he was CHARGED and found guilty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
2,211
Total visitors
2,385

Forum statistics

Threads
589,970
Messages
17,928,523
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top