Madeleine McCann's parents win Portuguese libel case and awarded £357k

First topic message reminder :

Goncalo Amaral, the police chief who led the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, has been ordered to pay her parents £357,000 in damages because of hurt caused to them following the publication of his book “The Truth of the Lie”.  The Civil Court of Lisbon also banned further sale of the book in which Mr Amaral claimed Madeleine had not been abducted, but had died in an accident in Praia da Luz.
Kate and Gerry McCann launched a libel action against Mr Amaral, who was sacked from the investigation after several months of blunders, claiming they and their family had suffered emotional and psychological harm as a result of the claims made in the book.
Mr Amaral’s legal team have leave to appeal the award.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11568725/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-awarded-357k-in-Portuguese-libel-case.html

No evidence she died in the apartment.

If there was, they would no doubt have been charged with murder.

They never were.

Nemesis wrote:No evidence she died in the apartment.

If there was, they would no doubt have been charged with murder.

They never were.

Not necessarily. Some outsider could have killed her in the apartment.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:No evidence she died in the apartment.

If there was, they would no doubt have been charged with murder.

They never were.

Not necessarily. Some outsider could have killed her in the apartment.

Not based off what Tommy is claiming.

What the evidence points to...

I just think that if the McCanns had anything to do with it, they wouldn't have maintained such a high profile - they would have kept quiet.

Raggamuffin wrote:I just think that if the McCanns had anything to do with it, they wouldn't have maintained such a high profile - they would have kept quiet.

dogs are not infallible and make mistakes ,they don`t speak English not to mention the handlers who can misinterpret a dogs actions ,i have seen enough border control programs where a dog gives a positive response in drug or weapon search when none actually exists i my self have foiled a sniffer dog with a sausage ,dogs in this instance are tools they are not proof of anything
some people seem to want them to be guilty regardless of facts  i have`nt read the book nore do i intend too  because conjecture and rumour are not evidence


And raggs hit the nail on the head
why would the McCanns make such a huge noise about it for this many years  involving international appeals and police forces and media exposure better to have let the story fade away like so many other missing kids storys do

some think they are some sort of criminal master minds to murder there daughter and leave no evidence anywhere, but stupid enough to to keep it in the news for this length of time  
if you had done this the last thing you would want is the continued and relentless investigation

people who think that they did this are no better than lochness monster and ufo conspiracy nuts and in fact make it harder to find her because all they are doing is muddying the water
i am sure the real culprits thank these folk nuts every day
if it was my daughter i would turn the planet upside down for answers just like they have done


occums razor's states that all things being equal,the  simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones"

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not necessarily. Some outsider could have killed her in the apartment.

Not based off what Tommy is claiming.

Pamela Fenn, who was in an apartment above the family on May 3 - the night Madeleine disappeared - is quoted as saying she believed Mrs McCann sometimes became violent and "out of control" in the room below.
She claimed that "the little girl's screams calling for her daddy were very audible".

Another witness is quoted as saying that Mrs McCann "seemed to have moments of aggressiveness towards her children" and that her husband, "though more absent, had more emotional control".

Plus, it was written somewhere about her step fathers lurid comments about Madeleine at the pool, prior to her death? I can't find that report right now.

[url=She claimed that "the little girl's screams calling for her daddy were very audible". Another witness is quoted as saying that Mrs McCann "seemed to have moments of aggressiveness towards her children" and that her husband, "though more absent, had more emotional control". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481168/Gerry-Madeleines-real-father-The-Portuguese-medias-latest-attack-McCanns.html#ixzz1NXimjRaM

captainJane wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



Not based off what Tommy is claiming.

Pamela Fenn, who was in an apartment above the family on May 3 - the night Madeleine disappeared - is quoted as saying she believed Mrs McCann sometimes became violent and "out of control" in the room below.
She claimed that "the little girl's screams calling for her daddy were very audible".

Another witness is quoted as saying that Mrs McCann "seemed to have moments of aggressiveness towards her children" and that her husband, "though more absent, had more emotional control".

Plus, it was written somewhere about her step fathers lurid comments about Madeleine at the pool, prior to her death? I can't find that report right now.

[url=She claimed that "the little girl's screams calling for her daddy were very audible".  Another witness is quoted as saying that Mrs McCann "seemed to have moments of aggressiveness towards her children" and that her husband, "though more absent, had more emotional control". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481168/Gerry-Madeleines-real-father-The-Portuguese-medias-latest-attack-McCanns.html#ixzz1NXimjRaM

Ex-pat Pamela Fenn, a widow in her 70s.

She claims she "scared off" an intruder who had broken into her apartment in the days before the McCanns arrived to stay in the holiday flat directly below her.

Mrs Fenn has told friends she heard a noise as she watched television and found a man escaping through her bedroom window. Her niece, who was staying with her, also saw the man. The widow reported the incident to police but claims no one contacted her after Madeleine vanished - until two weeks ago, when British detectives called on her. Mrs Fenn's niece is travelling to Portugal from the UK next week to be interviewed by the Policia Judiciaria. Mrs Fenn is also said to have heard the McCann children crying two nights before Madeleine's disappearance

The detectives book outlines the facts of The investigation, And mentions the highly unusual high level British involvement that was at best counterproductive at worst clearly intending to scupper the case against the mccanns.

When all is said and done, none of this would have happened if the McCanns hadn't left 3 under 5's alone in an Apartment in a foreign Country. Not in their 'back garden' as they wish people to believe. But down a staircase with no lighting, down a street, through a gate, through trees, across the other side of a swimming pool and into a bar, in a Country where they had been for a week so was unknown to them. And left the Apartment unlocked, although they did change the original story when they said it was locked. I remember saying on Sky News a couple of days after it happened, when the true pictures of the apartment came out in the press, I wouldn't have left my dog alone in there. They should at the very least have been charged with child neglect.

And those are basically all the facts people have. Whilst there is evidence that she died in the Apartment, blood stains, Cadaver dogs signalling, timelines making it impossible, there's no evidence whatsoever that she was abducted. Lies told about shutters being jemmied, times they checked on her, the mysterious 'egg man' seen by Jane Tanner who only came forward after 7 years (??), a fund being set up within 24 hours which they paid their mortgage with for 3 months until one of the papers picked it up, its all a mystery still.

Several people seem to have paid a dear price for the mistakes they made, from the friends who holidayed with them and are tarnished for life (google David Payne) Police Officers, newspapers, Robert Murat, PR people, the list is endless. The only people who have gained financially from all this is the McCanns.

I implore everyone to Read the in depth book summary in the link I posted earlier... it highlights every relevant detail of The investigation as told by the main detective on The case who had 25 years service.


He had no reason to treat this case any different to any other and was following all the available evidence and theories to where it led... unfortunately for him, there was much unusual interest and intervention from high places in Britain to press against the facts and where they led and to actually protect and excuse the main suspects...



If I was him, I would be livid at the treatment he got and would have written a book detailing everything too!



Read it and then draw your own conclusions...

Tommy Monk wrote:The detectives book outlines the facts of The investigation, And mentions the highly unusual high level British involvement that was at best counterproductive at worst clearly intending to scupper the case against the mccanns.

so now its a government conspiracy Jesus H Christ
with all due respect but you guys are bloody nuts and i for one not going to feed your paranoia any further i suggest nobody else does

It is almost as if Tommy commit the crime and is trying to ddflect thd investigation back to the McCanns.

harvesmom wrote:When all is said and done, none of this would have happened if the McCanns hadn't left 3 under 5's alone in an Apartment in a foreign Country. Not in their 'back garden' as they wish people to believe. But down a staircase with no lighting, down a street, through a gate, through trees, across the other side of a swimming pool and into a bar, in a Country where they had been for a week so was unknown to them.  And left the Apartment unlocked, although they did change the original story when they said it was locked. I remember saying on Sky News a couple of days after it happened, when the true pictures of the apartment came out in the press, I wouldn't have left my dog alone in there.  They should at the very least have been charged with child neglect.

And those are basically all the facts people have. Whilst there is evidence that she died in the Apartment, blood stains, Cadaver dogs signalling, timelines making it impossible, there's no evidence whatsoever that she was abducted. Lies told about shutters being jemmied, times they checked on her, the mysterious 'egg man' seen by Jane Tanner who only came forward after 7 years (??), a fund being set up within 24 hours which they paid their mortgage with for 3 months until one of the papers picked it up,   its all a mystery still.

Several people seem to have paid a dear price for the mistakes they made, from the friends who holidayed with them and are tarnished for life (google David Payne) Police Officers, newspapers, Robert Murat, PR people, the list is endless. The only people who have gained financially from all this is the McCanns.

Fabrication no 1
There is no evidence she died in the apartment.

Verdict - False and misleading. The claims about the dogs' abilities and performances are false. The alerts described by the MMRG are incorrect. The alerts of the dogs have to be corroborated by forensic evidence. They weren't.

Analysis of alerts by the Central Division of Information Analysis - PJ  who had their doubts about them.

 
Quote:

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification. If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times' On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time' Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078028/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2029

Window shutter:

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077415/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%201


It seems most people have come to their own conclusions based off hearsay and circumstantial evidence they wish to make fit to make the couple guilty.
When you break down the arguments most are very easily explained.

What this is when you boil it down is people deciding they are expert criminologists with no formal education on the matter or no experience with any Police force.

The reason people find the parents guilty is they left them to go a short distance down the road to have dinner, which may certainly be neglect, but is not a reason to claim they are guilty. So then what people do is go off in many cases false or misleading information to make them appear to be guilty.

The most damning case against the conspiracy theorists who claim the evidence is damning, (even though as seen it is easily torn apart) is that they have never been charged with the disappearance and murder of their own child.

If people want to find them guilty of neglect, this is also subjective and easy to say in hindsight when plenty of parents abroad have gone out to dinner nearby leaving their children alone. What this boils down to again is some claiming some higher morality "I am a better parent card" when they are never judged on their own parenting skills, as these are never known. It was like I was saying yesterday about UKIP supporters, who tend to be distrustful of many things tend to also be distrustful of authority and official narratives. In general the psychology  of such people show they are people who have trust issues and insecurities. When you break down the claims made here the vast majority fall apart under close scrutiny and are based off newspaper claims themselves. On many of the claims made are shown to be false or wrong, the conspiracy falls apart and yet they still cling to this view they are right, to the point they will even fall outwith people. They ignore the fact when parts of their claim are easily refuted and then they jump to the next point, never admitting they are wrong on that point after being refutted. Failing to understand as each is refuted their claim becomes far weaker, yet still retaining they are again experts based on nothing more than misreading the files, as seen they get many aspects wrong. This again is a telling aspect about the individual and are normally people who have sadly been let down by people whether in relationships, family friends etc. They center blame away from themselves as compensation and in this particular conspiracy or others, they do so to make themselves seem important or the "I am the better parent" again seeking recognition and attention. Not all are like this of course but a vast majority of them are. Some sadly have been traumatized by past events which makes trust near impossible or very difficult to say the least, which my heart goes out to them, how wrong it is that they have suffered and that they never should have. So I do take many things into consideration when analyzing each individual in regards to conspiracies.

Now I am sure the conspiracy theorists will not have issue with me analyzing them and judging them based off the empirical evidence I have come to the conclusion of which most of them tend to tick most if not all the boxes of the points I made. Being as they are so happy to judge others themselves, though in their case it is based off the flimsiest of evidence to say the least.

harvesmom wrote:When all is said and done, none of this would have happened if the McCanns hadn't left 3 under 5's alone in an Apartment in a foreign Country. Not in their 'back garden' as they wish people to believe. But down a staircase with no lighting, down a street, through a gate, through trees, across the other side of a swimming pool and into a bar, in a Country where they had been for a week so was unknown to them.  And left the Apartment unlocked, although they did change the original story when they said it was locked. I remember saying on Sky News a couple of days after it happened, when the true pictures of the apartment came out in the press, I wouldn't have left my dog alone in there.  They should at the very least have been charged with child neglect.

And those are basically all the facts people have. Whilst there is evidence that she died in the Apartment, blood stains, Cadaver dogs signalling, timelines making it impossible, there's no evidence whatsoever that she was abducted. Lies told about shutters being jemmied, times they checked on her, the mysterious 'egg man' seen by Jane Tanner who only came forward after 7 years (??), a fund being set up within 24 hours which they paid their mortgage with for 3 months until one of the papers picked it up,   its all a mystery still.

Several people seem to have paid a dear price for the mistakes they made, from the friends who holidayed with them and are tarnished for life (google David Payne) Police Officers, newspapers, Robert Murat, PR people, the list is endless. The only people who have gained financially from all this is the McCanns.

Spot on Harves
I have always said it was Mrs McCann in the apartment, with a temper. Daddy had naffed off a usual and left her with three kids to get to bed. Look at the time lines. Read the book. 30 seconds is a lot different to 30 minutes. Im not rehashing all the evidence again but the dogs dont lie and neither do the milometers on hire cars. There are still more questions than answers, but I DO know this...the McCanns lied and lied and lied.
"The situation Madeleine found herself in"
" We are thinking about a big event perhaps the one year anniversary?" said days after she went missing

FFS

Odd to say spot on when she was wrong.
She stated the child died in the aprtment.
There is no evidence to say whether she did or not.
So that is not spot on, in fact it is nothing more than assumption like the rest of her post which is claiming someone is guilty for being a distance from their children having dinner.


The dog evidence as seen is as seen questioned rightly by the Police, but it seems you take it as gospel even though there is no evidence to back up this claim.  This is a clear example of people trying to make things fit to make them guilty, such claims would rightly be laughed out of court and obliterated by a rubbish lawyer.


Nobody knows whether they did something or whether they are innocent and like most sound minded people await real evidence not some invented to make them guilty. As seen most claims are easily taken apart and as seen the dog evidence has been shown to be unreliable. Again I am proven right how the conspiracy brigade dismiss damning evidance against their claims.

@Tommy Monk

I have been too focused on the parents and the possibilities of an intruder taking her. After reading I can now see how badly this detective and his family have suffered, their lives have been forced apart. Plus so many people have been affected; simply from being around these people, who are quid’s in through all of it.

captainJane wrote:@Tommy Monk

I have been too focused on the parents and the possibilities of an intruder taking her. After reading I can now see how badly this detective and his family have suffered, their lives have been forced apart. Plus so many people have been affected; simply from being around these people, who are quid’s in through all of it.

The detective?

Seriously?

So explain how he has been badly effected to things he did himself?

Blimey is all I can say to that and backs my view on people who fall prey to conspiracy theories.

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The detectives book outlines the facts of The investigation, And mentions the highly unusual high level British involvement that was at best counterproductive at worst clearly intending to scupper the case against the mccanns.

so now its a government conspiracy Jesus H Christ
with all due respect but you guys are bloody nuts and i for one not going to feed your paranoia any further   i suggest nobody else does

Missed this and think you are bang on the money and it is like I said people need and feed of such cases as to me it is to make themselves feel important.

This has been done countless times and no matter how many of the claims are shown to be poor, false or nothing more than assumptions they will continue to continue with their witch hunt.
I do not claim to make any view other than one where there is clear evidence of their guilt, of which there is clearly nothing otherwise they would have been charged.

You are right though as this will just be a dancing thread of paranoia.

korban dallas wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The detectives book outlines the facts of The investigation, And mentions the highly unusual high level British involvement that was at best counterproductive at worst clearly intending to scupper the case against the mccanns.

so now its a government conspiracy Jesus H Christ
with all due respect but you guys are bloody nuts and i for one not going to feed your paranoia any further   i suggest nobody else does

Yeah because nothing is ever covered up...


elm guest house


Lord Janner


Jimmy Saville


Thousands of Paki Muslim child rape gangs...



Read the detectives account of what happened... he had absolutely no reason to treat this case in any other way as any other case, but others were definately getting involved in a highly unusual way...

So now a couple can convince goverments to cover up a crime.

Yep you cannot make it up how utterly fucking stupid that really is and gullible people are to a detective caught out as being as much a criminal himself, sacked, lost libel case. Ths list is endless and Tommy thinks he is telling the truth.

Would make a great panto..

Clarence Mitchell was strangely appointed to help the mccanns very early on.



In a bizarre twist, the disappearance of Madeline McCann in 2007, also has links to the murder of Jill Dando.
The government spokesman who was strangely appointed to help the McCanns, was Clarence Mitchell.
Mitchell was one of the first reporters on the scene when Jill was brutally murdered in 1999.
” We know he was closely involved with the Fred and Rosemary West case, in 1993, where a murderous couple had killed young girls and buried the bodies under their patio in Gloucester.
He reported on the death of Michael Hutchence in 1997.
He was also one of the first reporters to arrive at Gowan Avenue, Fulham in south west London, when the immensely popular BBC TV presenter Jill Dando was shot dead in a murder many feel has never been satisfactorily explained.
Towards the end of his BBC career Clarence became heavily used on royal stories. He was deeply involved in coverage of the post-Diana era and the death of the Queen Mother. Many people feel the facts surrounding the deaths of Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana never truly established.”
Some voices allege that Gerry McCann was given special treatment by the authorities because he was a high-ranking Freemason in Leicestershire.
The area has links to a huge VIP child-abuse network going back decades and is also where disgraced peer, Greville Janner was given his peerage by Tony Blair:
” In 1994, Frank Beck died in Whitemoor prison whilst serving a staggering 5 life sentences for alleged child abuse.
Frank Beck had been implicated in the abuse of boys in Leicestershire care homes.
Frank Beck had always maintained his innocence and claimed he was imprisoned because he’d exposed alleged abuse by a high-profile politician.
In 2011 the following anonymous comments were left on a blog which was discussing his death:
“ In 1991, after accusing Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period.
At his trial Beck stated that: – “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner“.
When Janner was ennobled in 1997, he took the title, Lord Janner of Braunstone.
The man responsible for ennobling Greville Janner was Tony Blair.
The following very interesting comments were left :
” I was in the courtroom when beck gave his evidence in full :his death by food poisoning in custody was very convenient for all those he said he had supplied the boys to in the local area .”
” Blair had a macabre sense of humour as Braunstone is the area Frank Beck used to live in. Beck was guilty. But he almost nailed Greville Janner.”
In 2007, the Express published an article about the McCanns:
” Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns
 Daily Express:
 3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Mad­eleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished.
The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”.
The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.



https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-national-archives-fire-jimmy-savile-mi5-margaret-thatcher-prince-philip-madeline-mccann-and-britains-dirty-secrets/

PMSL

So that is the bases for now a cover up.


Gets funnier by the minute where again no evidence to show it is being covered up, as hearsay assumptions count for naff all.



Next

So more hearsay


Next

Completely backing up the detectives version of events...

No just hearsay.

Next

For a start where is the link to your last C&P?

Shows you didn't read the post before that...


Strange how quick you are to completely dismiss things you have not read isn't it dodge...!!!???




The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.


Official classified document dodge... so not hearsay at all!!!

Classified


PMSL

Really, you really are making a right tit of yourself and again it is the opinion of a diplomat.
Hearsay

Where is this so called letter anyway, funny how you keep avoiding to provide this letter or the link lol

next

Already posted the information dodge...





Here it is again...




 Daily Express:
 3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Mad­eleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished.
The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”.
The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.



https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-national-archives-fire-jimmy-savile-mi5-margaret-thatcher-prince-philip-madeline-mccann-and-britains-dirty-secrets/

Daily Expresss that was slaughtered in the Levison enquiry


So like I said earlier the evidence comes from the media
Hearsay


Thank you Tommy


Next

And completely backs up the detectives account in his book of inconsistencies in THe mccanns storys and high level interference from British...

backs up nothing and again no actual evidence of the letter.


The daily Express no longer has this and why?

Because it was complete bollocks


Thanks Tommy


Next

In November 2011 the McCanns testified before the Leveson Inquiry into British press standards. The inquiry heard that the editor of the Daily Express, in particular, had become "obsessed" by the McCanns. Lord Justice Leveson called the Express articles "complete piffle"; Roy Greenslade described them as "a sustained campaign of vitriol."

Levison, where Kate mccann lied under oath as shown in a previous post to YouTube link and which ended in proposals to gag the free press...



Yes, very funny...



The fact is that the express picked up the story from the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure... who had the document leaked to them through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels.

She never lied at the enquiry.

As shown already you were wrong on that

That was countered also

Next

Respected?

Just saw that.

PMSL


Seriously your claim here has more holes than a colender. lol


Next

Countered!!!???



With bullshit!!!

captainJane wrote:@Tommy Monk

I have been too focused on the parents and the possibilities of an intruder taking her. After reading I can now see how badly this detective and his family have suffered, their lives have been forced apart. Plus so many people have been affected; simply from being around these people, who are quid’s in through all of it.

Captain Jane, can I ask when you read the detectives book/summary...?


And on a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest), how factual and accurate and believable do you think it was...?

Tommy Monk wrote:And completely backs up the detectives account in his book of inconsistencies in THe mccanns storys and high level interference from British...

I read enough to sway me! In between a busy day and hectic evening. Back on as soon as I can get the chance.
For now a number of things are really unusual on this case.  There were so many varying accounts, so I don't think anything was planned but somehow a bit of panic going on, as they were friends, maybe? The car with evidence found, after her disappearance. Beds being stripped before the rooms were searched, why? So many questions and very few answers.

The biggest piece of 'hearsay' in this whole thing is that Madeleine was abducted.

No evidence, no third party dna in the apartment, no fingerprints, no evidence of a break in, no witnesses, (unless you count the Smith family interviews that state they saw Gerry McCann carrying her away the same night) no chance for anyone to get in and take her according to the timelines, it was impossible to get into the Apartment as the front door was locked and the McCanns say they could see the patio doors, twins weren't disturbed, no screaming from Madeleine as she was carried off, nothing at all.

Except her parents say that she was abducted. But then they weren't there either were they.

I don't believe a targeted abduction, at that time in that location would be too busy and risky as to put off even the most determined... plus why her specifically anyway?


I don't believe a random burglar then thought it would be a good idea to take a child instead.


Is possible a random burglar crept in and disturbed her and accidentally killed her while trying to keep her quiet, but then would they hang around long enough to be certain she was dead and then decide to try to run away carrying a dead child rather than flee leaving the child behind without knowing if dead or alive?


To me, not only is there absolutely no evidence to support any of these abduction theory alternatives, and also none of them add up or make any sense...

harvesmom wrote:The biggest piece of 'hearsay' in this whole thing is that Madeleine was abducted.

No evidence, no third party dna in the apartment, no fingerprints,  no evidence of a break in, no witnesses, (unless you count the Smith family interviews that state they saw Gerry McCann carrying her away the same night) no chance for anyone to get in and take her according to the timelines, it was impossible to get into the Apartment as the front door was locked and the McCanns say they could see the patio doors, twins weren't disturbed, no screaming from Madeleine as she was carried off, nothing at all.

Except her parents say that she was abducted. But then they weren't there either were they.

Is there no evidence?
You seem to suggest because there is no physical evidence left behind by an abductor this means there was not an abductor, even though there is certainly sightings of people in the area at the time. Evidence is not always left at a scene of an incident. That is just plainly absurd and basically saying that if there is none you can rule out abduction? Nobody here is ruling out the parents could have done this. That is how you look at a case. You seem to have the most weirdest stance and unprofessional way to look a a case of a missing child. One things stands to reason is how less of a chance she was killed that night by the parents and then the body hidden in time in the intensive hot climate where a body would decompose and the smell would be over bearing.

So have you worked out the time frame on this for a couple with no means of transport. You have to factor in very small time frame, from the last known appearance of the child which was in the late afternoon to when the parents were at dinner. That leaves you a very small window, one of which she would have to be killed either by accident or on purpose and to then have hid the body in such a place it would not be found, whilst the couple were later constantly in the public spotlight. The odds on this are so remote it makes your case weak. You need to explain in such a short time frame, for one how a body is going to be hid for weeks, without this not being easily found due to the offensive smell. You need to factor in being able to bury the child with no tools to do this and no evidence of any ground being disturbed, all again with a time frame of a couple of hours. There were countless searches after this which would limit the area they could have hid of buried the body. So when t comes down to the claims of them killing her, the evidence is even less than the abduction.

So from her last known appearance in the afternoon, which is corroborated to the time they went to dinner, leaves you a very small time frame window of a few hours. In that time she has to die, which the most likely would be by accident, thus not premeditated. You then have to factor in panic with no prepared plan. This means then the parents have to get rid of her body, with no means of transport and hide the body, which would mean burying the child, with no tools to do so or transport, here even with tools to dig a 3ft hole is going to take one person 4 hours. To complicate matters for you Gerry was back later to the apartment that day, leaving this problem mainly to the mother to solve. Where are the sightings of them in this time, none of which you have brought forward. How they then have time to come back and clean up and get ready for dinner, plus the fact who is looking after their twins?
So how do you account for this?

Your window of opportunity is so small, you have a mountain to climb to make your case, so much so the case for them to have killed her is weaker than an abduction.

Or did you not factor any of these points in?

Speculation... all things are possible.



Evidence only points to one direction... how the details happened is the only reason why there has yet not been a prosecution...

Then all you have to do is take up the case as I have pointed out to you. I never denied anything is impossible, what I easily showed is how it is even less likely they killed her and that the chances of this are so remote it makes the conspiracy bods case utterly weak.

So stop wasting my time and counter my points, otherwise allow others to do so, because as seen you are nothing more than a joke for wasting time in debates.




Is there no evidence?
You seem to suggest because there is no physical evidence left behind by an abductor this means there was not an abductor, even though there is certainly sightings of people in the area at the time. Evidence is not always left at a scene of an incident. That is just plainly absurd and basically saying that if there is none you can rule out abduction? Nobody here is ruling out the parents could have done this. That is how you look at a case. You seem to have the most weirdest stance and unprofessional way to look a a case of a missing child. One things stands to reason is how less of a chance she was killed that night by the parents and then the body hidden in time in the intensive hot climate where a body would decompose and the smell would be over bearing.

So have you worked out the time frame on this for a couple with no means of transport. You have to factor in very small time frame, from the last known appearance of the child which was in the late afternoon to when the parents were at dinner. That leaves you a very small window, one of which she would have to be killed either by accident or on purpose and to then have hid the body in such a place it would not be found, whilst the couple were later constantly in the public spotlight. The odds on this are so remote it makes your case weak. You need to explain in such a short time frame, for one how a body is going to be hid for weeks, without this not being easily found due to the offensive smell. You need to factor in being able to bury the child with no tools to do this and no evidence of any ground being disturbed, all again with a time frame of a couple of hours. There were countless searches after this which would limit the area they could have hid of buried the body. So when t comes down to the claims of them killing her, the evidence is even less than the abduction.

So from her last known appearance in the afternoon, which is corroborated to the time they went to dinner, leaves you a very small time frame window of a few hours. In that time she has to die, which the most likely would be by accident, thus not premeditated. You then have to factor in panic with no prepared plan. This means then the parents have to get rid of her body, with no means of transport and hide the body, which would mean burying the child, with no tools to do so or transport, here even with tools to dig a 3ft hole is going to take one person 4 hours. To complicate matters for you Gerry was back later to the apartment that day, leaving this problem mainly to the mother to solve. Where are the sightings of them in this time, none of which you have brought forward. How they then have time to come back and clean up and get ready for dinner, plus the fact who is looking after their twins?
So how do you account for this?

Your window of opportunity is so small, you have a mountain to climb to make your case, so much so the case for them to have killed her is weaker than an abduction.

Or did you not factor any of these points in?

Bollocks dodge, more speculation and baseless waffle.



I dug a 3ft hole before to bury a dead pet in less than ten minutes.



There are only a limited number of possibilities here... the ones claimed are highly unlikely and not what really happened... that leaves only a couple of others... simple as that...

Tommy Monk wrote:Bollocks dodge, more speculation and baseless waffle.



I dug a 3ft hole before to bury a dead pet in less than ten minutes.



There are only a limited number of possibilities here... the ones claimed are highly unlikely and not what really happened... that leaves only a couple of others... simple as that...

Then you are clearly lying, let alone doing this with no tools, again with ground rock hard due to the heat, so you really are talking the biggest load of nonsense.
So your hearsay, is nothing more than bullshit and again this is just one point which does not address the time window again, or any sightings of them within this tie, trying to dispose of the body. They are limited to a small area, due to being on foot also. No ground was found disturbed, which was thoroughly searched by the Police. Also when I say 3ft, that is being generous to those making their case here


So try again:


Is there no evidence?
You seem to suggest because there is no physical evidence left behind by an abductor this means there was not an abductor, even though there is certainly sightings of people in the area at the time. Evidence is not always left at a scene of an incident. That is just plainly absurd and basically saying that if there is none you can rule out abduction? Nobody here is ruling out the parents could have done this. That is how you look at a case. You seem to have the most weirdest stance and unprofessional way to look a a case of a missing child. One things stands to reason is how less of a chance she was killed that night by the parents and then the body hidden in time in the intensive hot climate where a body would decompose and the smell would be over bearing.

So have you worked out the time frame on this for a couple with no means of transport. You have to factor in very small time frame, from the last known appearance of the child which was in the late afternoon to when the parents were at dinner. That leaves you a very small window, one of which she would have to be killed either by accident or on purpose and to then have hid the body in such a place it would not be found, whilst the couple were later constantly in the public spotlight. The odds on this are so remote it makes your case weak. You need to explain in such a short time frame, for one how a body is going to be hid for weeks, without this not being easily found due to the offensive smell. You need to factor in being able to bury the child with no tools to do this and no evidence of any ground being disturbed, all again with a time frame of a couple of hours. There were countless searches after this which would limit the area they could have hid of buried the body. So when t comes down to the claims of them killing her, the evidence is even less than the abduction.

So from her last known appearance in the afternoon, which is corroborated to the time they went to dinner, leaves you a very small time frame window of a few hours. In that time she has to die, which the most likely would be by accident, thus not premeditated. You then have to factor in panic with no prepared plan. This means then the parents have to get rid of her body, with no means of transport and hide the body, which would mean burying the child, with no tools to do so or transport, here even with tools to dig a 3ft hole is going to take one person 4 hours. To complicate matters for you Gerry was back later to the apartment that day, leaving this problem mainly to the mother to solve. Where are the sightings of them in this time, none of which you have brought forward. How they then have time to come back and clean up and get ready for dinner, plus the fact who is looking after their twins?
So how do you account for this?

Your window of opportunity is so small, you have a mountain to climb to make your case, so much so the case for them to have killed her is weaker than an abduction.

Or did you not factor any of these points in?

"...even with tools to dig a 3ft hole is going to take one person 4 hours...."



It's you who said that, and It's you who started speculating about the possibility of holes being dug to hide the body of a dead child...



But now claiming that The only available place would be 'rock' hard...!?


Interesting possibilities you bring up there dodge...

Tommy Monk wrote:

"...even with tools to dig a 3ft hole is going to take one person 4 hours...."
It's you who said that, and It's you who started speculating about the possibility of holes being dug to hide the body of a dead child...
But now claiming that The only available place would be 'rock' hard...!?
Interesting possibilities you bring up there dodge...

You are clutching at straws again.
It is a hot climate, so now you are claiming the ground is going to be soft like your head?
Shows you are clueless where again, they have to go unseen with a body and then unseen burying this body and all without tools within a few hours. For a start I am being generous on a  3 ft hole, which your claim of ten minutes even in damp soil is sheer bollocks, it would take at best 45mins to an hour and with tools. In hard soil rock hard by the sun, nearly 1 half hours to 2, so without tools 4-6 hours, that is what I meant and happy to clarify this for you now. That leaves your theory they killed her near impossible and able to dispose of her body, with no tools in that climate. Again you need witnesses to see them doing any of this. Show where they obtained tools which again there would be witnesses too, of which none have come forward. So if they did not bury the body, where was it hid, where it would not have been found from the stench of decomposition, which would be accelerated in the heat again? As I say, you cannot even resolve the disposing the body in a hole scenario to your claim, let alone the other points raised, which it is why it is a joke debating you.

Either address the points and stop wasting my time.


Last chance


Is there no evidence?
You seem to suggest because there is no physical evidence left behind by an abductor this means there was not an abductor, even though there is certainly sightings of people in the area at the time. Evidence is not always left at a scene of an incident. That is just plainly absurd and basically saying that if there is none you can rule out abduction? Nobody here is ruling out the parents could have done this. That is how you look at a case. You seem to have the most weirdest stance and unprofessional way to look a a case of a missing child. One things stands to reason is how less of a chance she was killed that night by the parents and then the body hidden in time in the intensive hot climate where a body would decompose and the smell would be over bearing.

So have you worked out the time frame on this for a couple with no means of transport. You have to factor in very small time frame, from the last known appearance of the child which was in the late afternoon to when the parents were at dinner. That leaves you a very small window, one of which she would have to be killed either by accident or on purpose and to then have hid the body in such a place it would not be found, whilst the couple were later constantly in the public spotlight. The odds on this are so remote it makes your case weak. You need to explain in such a short time frame, for one how a body is going to be hid for weeks, without this not being easily found due to the offensive smell. You need to factor in being able to bury the child with no tools to do this and no evidence of any ground being disturbed, all again with a time frame of a couple of hours. There were countless searches after this which would limit the area they could have hid of buried the body. So when t comes down to the claims of them killing her, the evidence is even less than the abduction.

So from her last known appearance in the afternoon, which is corroborated to the time they went to dinner, leaves you a very small time frame window of a few hours. In that time she has to die, which the most likely would be by accident, thus not premeditated. You then have to factor in panic with no prepared plan. This means then the parents have to get rid of her body, with no means of transport and hide the body, which would mean burying the child, with no tools to do so or transport, here even with tools to dig a 3ft hole is going to take one person 4 hours. To complicate matters for you Gerry was back later to the apartment that day, leaving this problem mainly to the mother to solve. Where are the sightings of them in this time, none of which you have brought forward. How they then have time to come back and clean up and get ready for dinner, plus the fact who is looking after their twins?
So how do you account for this?

Your window of opportunity is so small, you have a mountain to climb to make your case, so much so the case for them to have killed her is weaker than an abduction.

Or did you not factor any of these points in?