A few questions

Of course they would. Thats when it would be a recreational use. And btw in portugal drug use is like no big deal as long as it is a small amount for personal use. They could have easily acquired it anywhere in that resort eithout ever having to leave. It only takes a day or two to leave your system and they prob were users throughout medical school as well. Its much more common than yall think. Plenty of profesionals use it recreationally.

Pretty sure if they had drugs on them they would not have made it through airport security!

jordynsmommy529 said:

Pretty sure if they had drugs on them they would not have made it through airport security!

Click to expand...

They bought them there. Inside the resort, Duh. They would never attempt to cross any border with drugs on them. What didn't you get?

But professionals do coke as a part of their busy life styles - not when they're relaxing at a quiet resort, in bed by midnight, and with children to look after.

I have to admit, when I read their reports & tried picturing the coming & going that was the first thing I thought.
And yes, I think they probably would take it for recreational use.
MOO

EvelynCakes said:

They bought them there. Inside the resort, Duh. They would never attempt to cross any border with drugs on them. What didn't you get?

Click to expand...

lol, yes I'am sure they no many cocaine dealer's on holiday! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

six years later and this crap......

http://media.skynews.com/media/imag...lt/v1/sunday-express-front-page-1-329x437.jpg
*




A spy plane on a NATO exercise may have captured an aerial image of the person who abducted Madeleine McCann, it was claimed last night.

A Portuguese military aircraft took photos of the Algarve coastline on the day the three-year-old disappeared, says British military expert Phillip Borden.

He claims the photographs were clear enough to identify buildings and people's faces and were offered to Portuguese police when Nato officials later learned of Madeleine's disappearance,' Mr Borden said.

'The aircraft may provide a new....

Clutchbag said:

six years later and this crap......

http://media.skynews.com/media/imag...lt/v1/sunday-express-front-page-1-329x437.jpg
*




A spy plane on a NATO exercise may have captured an aerial image of the person who abducted Madeleine McCann, it was claimed last night.

A Portuguese military aircraft took photos of the Algarve coastline on the day the three-year-old disappeared, says British military expert Phillip Borden.

He claims the photographs were clear enough to identify buildings and people's faces and were offered to Portuguese police when Nato officials later learned of Madeleine's disappearance,' Mr Borden said.

'The aircraft may provide a new....

Click to expand...

I know it's probally bs but I wish it was true!

:winkaway: Maybe not . . . . .



Madeleine McCann is mentioned twice in the WikiLeaks cables.



The Guardian, 13 Dec. 2010



" British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter."



www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police

Full story now online...




A Portuguese military aircraft took photos of the Algarve coastline on the day the three-year-old dis appeared, says British military expert Philip Burden.

He claims the images were clear enough to identify buildings and people’s faces and were offered to Portuguese police when Nato officials later learned of Madeleine’s disappearance. Mr Burden said: “The aircraft may provide a new lead in the hunt for Madeleine. During the early and late evening of May 3, 2007, the day Madeleine disappeared from the holiday resort of Praia da Luz, the plane took aerial photos of that stretch of the Algarve.

[modsnip: more at link]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/44...-have-photographed-Madeleine-McCann-abduction

Maybe not so ridiculous.

Amaral has said that they attempted to retrieve this information but were denied.

Maybe these images actually exist...and maybe they reveal some truth.

If they in fact reveal anything that shows where Madeleine could have been taken, I would bet they would know that.


They should release them if they are available.

"They" happen to be NATO.

I dont know how this organisation can be forced to do anything...

The only reason we know about it is Wikileaks and Amaral. These images were known about by the PJ years ago.
.

Hi all!

Good convo going on here, so much info to go through in this case, ahh! So addictive!

What do y'all think of this?!

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/uk...glary-gone-wrong/story-fneszs56-1226795199295

Interesting, however I find it hard to believe professional burglars would want to take a child with them!? Surely that would just make things 10 billions times worse! It says the burglars had previously robbed an apartment and disturbed a child and then fled, so why would they just suddenly take the child this time?

I don't understand how the police can say they 'know who kidnapped Madeleine' simply based off the facts that the burglars made phone calls around the time she was kidnapped, hopefully more is explained about this because it sounds like flimsy evidence to make such strong statements about.

So much coming out lately about this case, all leading to no where. E-fits not released for 5 years (WTF?!), a suspect who died 4 years ago, those aeroplane photographs and now this. I find myself starting to think these are all just distractions...

:seeya:

Hi Stef88

I think it's a load of B.S. !!

*(see Crimewatch thread, we seem to have been using that for general discussion lately)

Stef88 said:

Hi all!

Good convo going on here, so much info to go through in this case, ahh! So addictive!

What do y'all think of this?!

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/uk...glary-gone-wrong/story-fneszs56-1226795199295

Interesting, however I find it hard to believe professional burglars would want to take a child with them!? Surely that would just make things 10 billions times worse! It says the burglars had previously robbed an apartment and disturbed a child and then fled, so why would they just suddenly take the child this time?

I don't understand how the police can say they 'know who kidnapped Madeleine' simply based off the facts that the burglars made phone calls around the time she was kidnapped, hopefully more is explained about this because it sounds like flimsy evidence to make such strong statements about.

So much coming out lately about this case, all leading to no where. E-fits not released for 5 years (WTF?!), a suspect who died 4 years ago, those aeroplane photographs and now this. I find myself starting to think these are all just distractions...

Click to expand...

Madeleine sells papers, so the media will print anything about the case however stupid or irresponsible. Have a look at the leveson inquiry, where on oath media bosses admitted they printed anything regardless of its truth, and how the police admitted under oath they knew lies were printed about the case that falsely implicated the parents but when questioned by journalists did not correct them in case it upset the Portuguese police.

brit1981 said:

Madeleine sells papers, so the media will print anything about the case however stupid or irresponsible. Have a look at the leveson inquiry, where on oath media bosses admitted they printed anything regardless of its truth, and how the police admitted under oath they knew lies were printed about the case that falsely implicated the parents but when questioned by journalists did not correct them in case it upset the Portuguese police.

Click to expand...

Lies were printed indeed.

I don't know how it can be claimed that "lies falsely implicated the parents" when the parents implicated themselves by their changing stories, refusal to cooperate, and let's not forget the dogs and the DNA and Martin Smith.

SapphireSteel said:

Lies were printed indeed.

I don't know how it can be claimed that "lies falsely implicated the parents" when the parents implicated themselves by their changing stories, refusal to cooperate, and let's not forget the dogs and the DNA and Martin Smith.

Click to expand...

The parents have not changed their stories or refused to cooperate. The dogs are not evidence, they are guides to help find evidence and nothing was found at their alert sites (aside from Gerry McCann's DNA), this dog has also made false alerts in other cases. No DNA of Madeleine mccanns was found, the nearest was a sample found in the car boot which came from at least three people and contained fifteen markers shared by Madeleine, HOWEVER, these fifteen markers may have come from up to five different individuals, and not only are none of the markers unique to Madeleine but every single marker in her DNA is found multiple times over in her family so the findings meant nothing more than it was likely the DNA had McCann family members as contributors. Incidently, for those that are convinced the dog alerts mean death, the evrd never alerted in the place the DNA was found.

But your post does prove the point about how damaging the lies about the DNA, dogs abilities etc were to the McCann's. [modsnip].
The links to thus I have posted previously but can be found in the PJ files and leveson enquiry site.

An E.V.R.D. dogs alerts to SCENT !

"In every place marked by the blood dog it was confirmed there was DNA."


Report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

(snip)

" All the inspections were recorded in sound and image and were directed by our British colleagues that accompanied the dogs.

Among the great number of objects and locales inspected, the dogs marked the following places:
1. Apartment 5 A, Ocean Club resort, the place from where the child disappeared
1.1. Cadaver odour
* Master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe
* Living room, behind the sofa, by the side window
1.2. Blood dog:
* Living room behind the sofa, close to the lateral window (on the same spot signalled by the cadaver dog);
2. Front garden to the apartment 5A
2.1. Cadaver dog
* Flower bed (the dog handler commented on the 'lightness' of the odor)
3. Apartments where the rest of the group were staying
* NOTHING was detected by the dogs
4. Actual residence of the McCann
* NOTHING was detected on the house by any of the dogs
5. At Aldeia da Luz
* NOTHING was detected by any of the dogs
6. Clothes and belongings of McCann family
6.1. Cadaver dog:
* 2 pieces of clothing of Kate McCann
* One piece of Madeleine McCann
* Madeleine's soft toy
* The odour was detected when the toy was still in the interior of the actual residence of the McCann
* It was confirmed in out of the house conditions
7. Vehicle used by the McCann family
7.1. Cadaver dog:
* Marked the key of the car
* Marked the interior of the booth
7.2. Blood dog
* Marked the car key
* Marked the interior of the booth
8. Car used by a family friend that was staying in the same resort, in some of the same days
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs
9. All the cars used by the arguido Robert Murat and the people that are close to him
* Nothing was detected by any of the dogs."

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

brit1981 said:

The parents have not changed their stories or refused to cooperate. The dogs are not evidence, they are guides to help find evidence and nothing was found at their alert sites (aside from Gerry McCann's DNA), this dog has also made false alerts in other cases. No DNA of Madeleine mccanns was found, the nearest was a sample found in the car boot which came from at least three people and contained fifteen markers shared by Madeleine, HOWEVER, these fifteen markers may have come from up to five different individuals, and not only are none of the markers unique to Madeleine but every single marker in her DNA is found multiple times over in her family so the findings meant nothing more than it was likely the DNA had McCann family members as contributors. Incidently, for those that are convinced the dog alerts mean death, the evrd never alerted in the place the DNA was found.

But your post does prove the point about how damaging the lies about the DNA, dogs abilities etc were to the McCann's. Its been established as lies under oath, yet people still believe it.
The links to thus I have posted previously but can be found in the PJ files and leveson enquiry site.

Click to expand...

What has been established as lies under oath?

What are you talking about?