So will the truth ever come out?

[Kitty B]

I sit and wonder if the truth will ever come out about Madeleine.

Now, seems a bit odd that her parents would cause all this ruckus if they indeed had something to do with her disappearance. Again, if they did, it is a surefire way to divert attention from themselves.....

I still can´t get over the sedation issue. That just blows me away, and on the news here in Norway they have said that that is quite normal for parents to do if they want to have some "alone time"....hm......

I also know that if my husband or myself (GOD FORBID) was ever involved in any type of accident involving our children, neither of us would lie for the other. The truth will always set you free.......

I think the mother seems cold and unemotional. It could be that she is in shock and can´t cope, but I don´t know. What about the diary? What mother keeps a diary and whines about how hyper their kids are? I don´t get it.......

[bullmoose]

I sit and wonder if the truth will ever come out about Madeleine.

Now, seems a bit odd that her parents would cause all this ruckus if they indeed had something to do with her disappearance. Again, if they did, it is a surefire way to divert attention from themselves.....

I still can´t get over the sedation issue. That just blows me away, and on the news here in Norway they have said that that is quite normal for parents to do if they want to have some "alone time"....hm......

I also know that if my husband or myself (GOD FORBID) was ever involved in any type of accident involving our children, neither of us would lie for the other. The truth will always set you free.......

I think the mother seems cold and unemotional. It could be that she is in shock and can´t cope, but I don´t know. What about the diary? What mother keeps a diary and whines about how hyper their kids are? I don´t get it.......

All the crap about the diary and the mother--whatever is part of a deliberate disinformation campaign by the portugese cops to smear the parents and sway public opinion against them; all these endless supposed leaks, I thought it was all secret? I don't believe a single reported thing until I hear the McCanns say it, to me its just a PR campaign by the inept cops. JMHO

[Jo_Momma_82]

I will publicly say that my 2 and 4 yr. olds are hyperactive and can grate on my nerves every once in awhile. I don't know a single mother who doesn't get even a little overwhelmed. I KNOW that this will never lead to anything more than a little "solitary" in the corner or me eventually developing a nervous tick (LOL). As far as sedating the kids and leaving them, WOW ! I don't understand what would ever make either of those 'ok' to the parents. I actually had my daughters pediatrician tell me that it was ok to give my, now 8 yr. old daughter, benadryl to sleep (for colic from birth-3 months old) but, I couldn't do it. I think the only reason why she suggested it though was b/c she saw that my daughter was getting no sleep and crying constantly and couldn't find any other way to help her.

[JBRnotforgotten]

I don't understand why they are being treated like bad criminals and yet others are having sightings of Madeleine. I can not imagine how Kate and Gerry feel... I pray for them and of course Madeleine too

[Pelicanette]

None of us knows how we would feel or what we would do in such a situation. Many people like to post exactly what they would say and do, but in such an emotional shock, nobody knows. We may do something totally bizarre. I think Kate is in shock most of the time. But there are times she weeps. That is what any parent would do. She is caught up in a nightmare. I think the Portuguese police are inept fools at best and corrupt torturers at worst. They have not managed to leak one legitimate, provable fact thus far. I do not trust them at all. How dare them say the McCanns can no longer talk about their own daughter. It is the JOB of the police to find a missing child, and the Portuguese police have not done it.

[Eagle1]

I believe you're the first member we've had from Norway.

Maybe they didn't actually sedate Maddie, which if I remember correctly has been eliminated, but I may not remember correctly.

Leaving such young children alone, I agree, is absolutely inexcusable.

Naturally we can imagine how they would finally feel about getting caught doing this. We're not dunces. We also know a lot more, for instance that if we did such a thing we'd probably be in prison or something.

If the perp turns out to be someone else, fine, as long as Maddie is found alive and well, and surely they will have finally learned their common sense lesson. Nobody, including police who risk their lives for us every day, is being too rough on the McCanns.

Internet posters' loyalty should be with all of us colleagues, and our right to post our points of view equally, without attacks from those who claim to absolutely know the McC's are innocent and we're not, according to the rules all forums have. Hope you enjoy being with us. Don't take it seriously if anyone starts in about your sources being misleading or tabloids, just fillibustering. The Updates Only sticky always has the facts.

[Jayelles]

I believe you're the first member we've had from Norway.

Maybe they didn't actually sedate Maddie, which if I remember correctly has been eliminated, but I may not remember correctly.

Leaving such young children alone, I agree, is absolutely inexcusable.

Naturally we can imagine how they would finally feel about getting caught doing this. We're not dunces. We also know a lot more, for instance that if we did such a thing we'd probably be in prison or something.

If the perp turns out to be someone else, fine, as long as Maddie is found alive and well, and surely they will have finally learned their common sense lesson. Nobody, including police who risk their lives for us every day, is being too rough on the McCanns.

Internet posters' loyalty should be with all of us colleagues, and our right to post our points of view equally, without attacks from those who claim to absolutely know the McC's are innocent and we're not, according to the rules all forums have. Hope you enjoy being with us. Don't take it seriously if anyone starts in about your sources being misleading or tabloids, just fillibustering. The Updates Only sticky always has the facts.

Who has ever posted that they "absolutely know" the McCanns are innocent? I've seen plenty post that they believe there isn't sufficient evidence to prove their guilt or even that they don't think they are guilty - but I've never seen anyone post what you claim.

Facts are important. We are talking about real people's lives here. The tabloids have created a load of fairy stories around this case and many of these hurtful lies have been perpetuated on Internet forums. That is why forums like this require sources. Posters who make factual statements backed up with credible sources have nothing to fear. I think you'll find the Mods share this opinion.

[Eagle1]

Again, I have to agree with you.

Nobody's ever posted a SOURCE, that I know of, proving as FACT that any of the people in this case are innocent, no source, tabloid or whatever.

We've said over and over we're neutral as long as Maddie is found.

I've just had to do a defrag to get into any of CL tonight, also an AOL one, and I may have to wait until some time when there's less traffic.

First, can I share a bit of good news, not sure I could get into Blowin Off Steam? Wednesday I went to my retina specialist where I'd had a series of 4 up-to-100-laser-burns to seal off rogue blood vessels, and vision had improved in the eye which has been healing longest, from 20/50 to 20/40. The procedure's not even meant to improve vision, just to stop proliferation of extra blood vessels which cause blindness. When I go back in 2 mo. hopefully I may have some improvement in my worse eye too. The goal is just to save it, no guarantees. Thanks for listening, friends.

I'll let Odette reply about her source, if she thinks it's important enough. If she doesn't, I agree.

[Jayelles]

Again, I have to agree with you.

Nobody's ever posted a SOURCE, that I know of, proving as FACT that any of the people in this case are innocent, no source, tabloid or whatever.


You cannot prove a negative - which is precisely why the law views a person as innocent until proved guilty. Thankfully, we all enjoy that right in the civilised world.

It's absolutely not wrong to be suspicious of a person -it's not even wrong to express an opinion that they might be guilty when these suspicions and opinions are based upon facts. What IS wrong IMO is spreading hurtful misinformation and lies about the McCanns which influence the opinions of other people.

[Eagle1]

We're suspicious of quite a few people, plus unknown people, for which SOURCES are demanded, so our defense is the same, you can't prove a negative; they're all innocent until proven guilty.

They're ALL innocent until proven guilty, not just the McCanns. So if people have to have sources about them, they've also got to have sources about the McCanns, fair and equal.

Everybody's also suspect, besides "innocent until proven guilty". That's simple enough.

It's very early morning here, didn't go back to bed yet after a b/r break, and computer slowness is still almost as bad as last night, when I did two disk cleanups, not defrags, so if anyone else can translate that more simple, feel free. I need some more z's, and already explained about my eye treatments stress too. TIA.

[sallynuts]

I do not think the parents are to blame here... and that is in my own opinion,, ok..

i would just like to say,, without taking anything away from Madeliene.... how many children went missing this year? and have not been found? or last year for that matter,, or the year before... why are we soooo focused on this one child?? she is precious,, yes,, but no more precious than the next child...

I do pray, and i wish and hope that she and every other child that has EVER gone missing,, is found... :shrug: i don't know what happened to them.. i wish i did,, so that all you parents out there could find peace... i am a parent.. and i can only imagine the agony that you must go through each day...

for those who know what happened... and i know you will read this ... you won't be able to help yourselves.. you will get yours... maybe not today,,, but me or my kind will be waiting for you;.... don't ever think you will get away with it... :biggrin: we'll get ya....

[Jayelles]

We're suspicious of quite a few people, plus unknown people, for which SOURCES are demanded, so our defense is the same, you can't prove a negative; they're all innocent until proven guilty.

They're ALL innocent until proven guilty, not just the McCanns. So if people have to have sources about them, they've also got to have sources about the McCanns, fair and equal.

Everybody's also suspect, besides "innocent until proven guilty". That's simple enough.

It's very early morning here, didn't go back to bed yet after a b/r break, and computer slowness is still almost as bad as last night, when I did two disk cleanups, not defrags, so if anyone else can translate that more simple, feel free. I need some more z's, and already explained about my eye treatments stress too. TIA.

I requested a source for your suggestion that Kate McCann is bipolar. That is a very specific claim. I see plenty of avoidance and excuses but no attempt to provide the source.

[Babootje]

Although I find it very upsetting to think Gerry & Kate McCann have something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine I do (except of de evidence found) because of the following (excuse me for my bad english, for Im Dutch):

This is what they did, all nine friends during their holliday. They had dinner every evening, where all children were left alone. Only David and Fiona used an intercom system to hear if their children did not cry.
The dinner almost always lasted up to midnight. They came as from 8:30 PM to table, used aperitifs. Most of them drank the beer with martini, that is popular in Portugal, but Kate drank for example a cocktail on rum basis. Normally they also drank firm spirits after eating, but the particular evening they didn't came to that.
When all nine frieds arrived the ordered wine (white and red) en usually 10-12 bottles.
That evening no one of the guests at table has been left except Gerry and Russell, as becomes clear from depositions of the staff of the Tapas bar. Just as after nine and almost simultaneous. Gerry and Russell (man of Jane Tanner) left the table. Russell stayed away for an hour, with excuus that his doughter has been sick and the bed had to be changed, of which never proof has been found; there was never asked for clean bedsheets.

Gerry came into Jeremy, a producer that he met during the holiday, who walked his child tot sleep. On the same time Jane Tanner claimes to have seen the man with the child she believes was Maddie, but according to the waiters she has not been off the table, or they must have been mistaken.
When Gerry was already half an hour back at the table, Russell just returned.

A little while later (at 10.00) Kate left en alarms the group shouting from of the veranda. (In other versions she first went back to the group.) Everyone (except Dianne) went into the apartment. Dianne went a little later on. (In one of the TV productions Jane claims she was already in her apartment when Kate set out the alarm, this while every evening before she always stayed at the table with the others until midnight)
Dianne find everyone in the apartment to where the friends literally take everything in their hands, try doors, windows everything. (The later collected evidence became this way worthless, because they were contaminated products)
Then Pamela Fenn offers to phone the GNR (local police) Kate says that it is not necessary, because she already did so. Fact is although that phone call was done at 22.40 hrs, an hour after the discovery of disappearance.
At 23.00 the GNR arrived; because they didn't speak English, a staff member was asked to translate. After middernacht the Policia Juardica (PJ) arrived and the family where transferred. The twins who were fast asleep, did not awake during the transfer.
The first thing that occurs to the PJ is that the apartment is very clean and neat (while the McCanns just put 3 children in bath and to bed, just before they went to dinner)
Futhermore it occured strange to them (the PJ) that there was no first aid medicine in the apartment, something usual to take with you on holidays especially with children.

Cuddlecat was the only toy in the room which Kate held in her hands. At first she claimes it was on the floor, later she claims it was on a shelf of which was to high for Maddie to put it her self.
Later on there was discovered a scent of a corpse on the toy, of which Kate claimes this was related to her work.

What also was striking is that Kate insisted immediately on kidnapping, whereas the child could run also outside.

The PJ press the McCanns to the heart to not give the special details concerning Maddies eyes and how she looked. They warned them this will increase the possibility that the kidnapper wil get rid of her and kill her.
In spite of that they themselves initiated tot publish the photo's of Maddie including the special mark in her eyes (and deliberately took the risk the child would be killed).

[Babootje]

24Horas came with the news that Russell O Brien and Jane Tanner and another couple that also were in the Ocean Clup at the time Maddie disappeared (James and Charlotte Gorlod) in Exeter neighbours are of Samantha the sister of Robert Murat. He stayed with his sister 10 days and returned tot Praia da Luz two days before the disappearance of Maddie.
The police wants to check if in the weeks before the disappearance there was contact between them.

Furthermore it is relatively quiet concerning information coming from the PJ.
It is possible that this is for not giving too much information to the legal team of the McCanns.
In the articles that Odette translated from the Portugese papers you could conclude that we are near a final conclusion.
Although a great deal of the evidence found is inconclusive, some of them (they do not tell us which) are supportive of the line of research...
The PJ now is in the stage of completing the puzzle...
The McCanns fled to an unknown place for privacy reasons...
The PJ is preparing new hearings...
I think this will become to an end soon.

[Jayelles]

24Horas came with the news that Russell O Brien and Jane Tanner and another couple that also were in the Ocean Clup at the time Maddie disappeared (James and Charlotte Gorlod) in Exeter neighbours are of Samantha the sister of Robert Murat. He stayed with his sister 10 days and returned tot Praia da Luz two days before the disappearance of Maddie.
The police wants to check if in the weeks before the disappearance there was contact between them.

Furthermore it is relatively quiet concerning information coming from the PJ.
It is possible that this is for not giving too much information to the legal team of the McCanns.
In the articles that Odette translated from the Portugese papers you could conclude that we are near a final conclusion.
Although a great deal of the evidence found is inconclusive, some of them (they do not tell us which) are supportive of the line of research...
The PJ now is in the stage of completing the puzzle...
The McCanns fled to an unknown place for privacy reasons...
The PJ is preparing new hearings...
I think this will become to an end soon.

This is 24 Horas you are talking about - the Portuguese tabloid which will go down in the history of the case as having the most inaccurate and far-fetched reporting about the case. The McCanns are allegedly planning to suit them.

Exeter has a population of 120,000. It's a fairly spread out part of the country and Murat's sister is reported here as living within a few miles of the O'Brien's.

It's a link worth investigating - but it's hardly a smoking gun. IMO it's just another story to keep the papers selling.

[Results]

I believe you're the first member we've had from Norway.

Maybe they didn't actually sedate Maddie, which if I remember correctly has been eliminated, but I may not remember correctly.

Leaving such young children alone, I agree, is absolutely inexcusable.

Naturally we can imagine how they would finally feel about getting caught doing this. We're not dunces. We also know a lot more, for instance that if we did such a thing we'd probably be in prison or something.

If the perp turns out to be someone else, fine, as long as Maddie is found alive and well, and surely they will have finally learned their common sense lesson. Nobody, including police who risk their lives for us every day, is being too rough on the McCanns.

Internet posters' loyalty should be with all of us colleagues, and our right to post our points of view equally, without attacks from those who claim to absolutely know the McC's are innocent and we're not, according to the rules all forums have. Hope you enjoy being with us. Don't take it seriously if anyone starts in about your sources being misleading or tabloids, just fillibustering. The Updates Only sticky always has the facts.

Hey Eagle!

I for one don't care about the personal attacks. I have the right to my opinion and my VERY HONEST OPINION IS they are guilty either way. If she was kidnapped they are responsible. When a Mother feels like her children are being watched you don't leave them alone for who ever is watching your children to have an opportunity to take them. I don't buy their story for that reason. Some one is stalking you but you just go right ahead and leave the children alone? Something not right here. JMHO

[Results]

Although I find it very upsetting to think Gerry & Kate McCann have something to do with the disappearance of Madeleine I do (except of de evidence found) because of the following (excuse me for my bad english, for Im Dutch):

This is what they did, all nine friends during their holliday. They had dinner every evening, where all children were left alone. Only David and Fiona used an intercom system to hear if their children did not cry.
The dinner almost always lasted up to midnight. They came as from 8:30 PM to table, used aperitifs. Most of them drank the beer with martini, that is popular in Portugal, but Kate drank for example a cocktail on rum basis. Normally they also drank firm spirits after eating, but the particular evening they didn't came to that.
When all nine frieds arrived the ordered wine (white and red) en usually 10-12 bottles.
That evening no one of the guests at table has been left except Gerry and Russell, as becomes clear from depositions of the staff of the Tapas bar. Just as after nine and almost simultaneous. Gerry and Russell (man of Jane Tanner) left the table. Russell stayed away for an hour, with excuus that his doughter has been sick and the bed had to be changed, of which never proof has been found; there was never asked for clean bedsheets.

Gerry came into Jeremy, a producer that he met during the holiday, who walked his child tot sleep. On the same time Jane Tanner claimes to have seen the man with the child she believes was Maddie, but according to the waiters she has not been off the table, or they must have been mistaken.
When Gerry was already half an hour back at the table, Russell just returned.

A little while later (at 10.00) Kate left en alarms the group shouting from of the veranda. (In other versions she first went back to the group.) Everyone (except Dianne) went into the apartment. Dianne went a little later on. (In one of the TV productions Jane claims she was already in her apartment when Kate set out the alarm, this while every evening before she always stayed at the table with the others until midnight)
Dianne find everyone in the apartment to where the friends literally take everything in their hands, try doors, windows everything. (The later collected evidence became this way worthless, because they were contaminated products)
Then Pamela Fenn offers to phone the GNR (local police) Kate says that it is not necessary, because she already did so. Fact is although that phone call was done at 22.40 hrs, an hour after the discovery of disappearance.
At 23.00 the GNR arrived; because they didn't speak English, a staff member was asked to translate. After middernacht the Policia Juardica (PJ) arrived and the family where transferred. The twins who were fast asleep, did not awake during the transfer.
The first thing that occurs to the PJ is that the apartment is very clean and neat (while the McCanns just put 3 children in bath and to bed, just before they went to dinner)
Futhermore it occured strange to them (the PJ) that there was no first aid medicine in the apartment, something usual to take with you on holidays especially with children.

Cuddlecat was the only toy in the room which Kate held in her hands. At first she claimes it was on the floor, later she claims it was on a shelf of which was to high for Maddie to put it her self.
Later on there was discovered a scent of a corpse on the toy, of which Kate claimes this was related to her work.

What also was striking is that Kate insisted immediately on kidnapping, whereas the child could run also outside.

The PJ press the McCanns to the heart to not give the special details concerning Maddies eyes and how she looked. They warned them this will increase the possibility that the kidnapper wil get rid of her and kill her.
In spite of that they themselves initiated tot publish the photo's of Maddie including the special mark in her eyes (and deliberately took the risk the child would be killed).

Excellent post!

[Jayelles]

Hey Eagle!

I for one don't care about the personal attacks. I have the right to my opinion and my VERY HONEST OPINION IS they are guilty either way. If she was kidnapped they are responsible. When a Mother feels like her children are being watched you don't leave them alone for who ever is watching your children to have an opportunity to take them. I don't buy their story for that reason. Some one is stalking you but you just go right ahead and leave the children alone? Something not right here. JMHO

I'd be interested in your source for Kate feeling that someone was watching/stalking her before Madeleine went missing (as opposed to thinking this with hindsight)?

I know that Gerry has said that "in retrospect" they feel that someone might have been watching them, but I've never seen any credible source which stated that prior to Madeleine's disappearance either McCann felt they were being watched/stalked.

When Gerry McCann stated in an interview that he thought the abductor might have actually hiding been in the apartment when he checked on the children one of the tabloid forums whipped itself into a frenzy over Gerry "thinking there was an abductor in the apartment and choosing to return to his meal regardless" - which of course was not at all what was said. Gerry McCann had been speaking "with hindsight".

[Jayelles]

Contrary to Result's claim that the McCanns had felt that prior to Madeleine being taken, that they were being watched/stalked, I have noted several occasions where they said they felt safe. Here is one interview:-

Mrs McCann said: "I ask myself, 'Why did I think it was safe?' But it felt safe. You don't expect a predator to break in and take your daughter."


http://internationalrewardscentre.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=824&Itemid=2

Here is another:-

"If I had thought for a second that they were in any danger or in any risk I would have never done it. This place is so small and so quiet – we all just felt safe.

"We were still within the complex grounds and were checking on them regularly.

"We never thought that anything like this could ever happen – not in such a peaceful and quiet resort like Praia da Luz."



http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/madeleine-mccann/2007/08/20/we-won-t-be-bullied-out-of-praia-da-luz-64375-19660629/

I don't think that they would have "felt safe" if they were feeling that they were being watched or stalked.

[andU]

Contrary to Result's claim that the McCanns had felt that prior to Madeleine being taken, that they were being watched/stalked, I have noted several occasions where they said they felt safe. Here is one interview:-



http://internationalrewardscentre.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=824&Itemid=2

Here is another:-



http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/madeleine-mccann/2007/08/20/we-won-t-be-bullied-out-of-praia-da-luz-64375-19660629/

I don't think that they would have "felt safe" if they were feeling that they were being watched or stalked.

I agree with you, Jayelles. Some people read the tabloids and think they are reading truth in print when in fact, it is nothing but sensationalism - written to sell the garbage. I give them not one minute of my time; they don't know fact from fiction.

[Babootje]

The possibillity of sedation of Maddie is not ruled out. The McCanns' did som testing on the hairs of the twinns to prove that they were not sedated. But... there were traces found in DNA samples with a sedation.
With the testing they thus prooved (in my opinion) that the DNA traces in which the sedation is found must belong to Maddie. (For the DNA of the twinns is very similar whith Maddies).

The whole case of the disappearance of Maddie rests on DNA evidence and some circumstantial evidence such as telephone records, the testimonies of the friends and staff of the Ocean Club . The PJ is preparing a re interview but all friends now have had enough time to coordinate their testimonies.

I hope the PJ has more evidence in reserve, otherwise I fear we will never know what happened.

In my opinion the truth mostly lies nearby the most logical explanation.
That is why I cannot believe the kidnapping story, because pedophile kidnappers mostly are opportunists that will not take such a risk to take a sleeping child out of an appartment with other children sleeping.
The are many more childeren easier to take, sadly because nobody gives a ****. Why take Madeleine? Thats something I can not believe.

[Jayelles]

The possibillity of sedation of Maddie is not ruled out. The McCanns' did som testing on the hairs of the twinns to prove that they were not sedated. But... there were traces found in DNA samples with a sedation.
With the testing they thus prooved (in my opinion) that the DNA traces in which the sedation is found must belong to Maddie. (For the DNA of the twinns is very similar whith Maddies).

The whole case of the disappearance of Maddie rests on DNA evidence and some circumstantial evidence such as telephone records, the testimonies of the friends and staff of the Ocean Club . The PJ is preparing a re interview but all friends now have had enough time to coordinate their testimonies.

I hope the PJ has more evidence in reserve, otherwise I fear we will never know what happened.

In my opinion the truth mostly lies nearby the most logical explanation.
That is why I cannot believe the kidnapping story, because pedophile kidnappers mostly are opportunists that will not take such a risk to take a sleeping child out of an appartment with other children sleeping.
The are many more childeren easier to take, sadly because nobody gives a ****. Why take Madeleine? Thats something I can not believe.

Do you have a source for traces of sedation being found in the DNA?

Don't you think if the PJ had evidence they would have arrested someone?

[Jayelles]

I agree with you, Jayelles. Some people read the tabloids and think they are reading truth in print when in fact, it is nothing but sensationalism - written to sell the garbage. I give them not one minute of my time; they don't know fact from fiction.

If this case has taught me anything, it's that some tabloids will print anything to sell their newspapers.

:seeya:

[andU]

If this case has taught me anything, it's that some tabloids will print anything to sell their newspapers.

:seeya:


Yeah, this case, Elvis' death and the Ramsey case - they have made a haul! ..and foolish people still buy the trash and take every word as truth.

[Jayelles]

Yeah, this case, Elvis' death and the Ramsey case - they have made a haul! ..and foolish people still buy the trash and take every word as truth.

Well... I think it speaks volumes that the BBC and the broadsheet newspapers have hardly covered the case at all. Several months ago they condemned the tabloids for manufacturing stories in order to keep up sales and said they would only report facts when there were facts to report. And they've been largely silent!

Today there is a report which says that contrary to the tabloids saying that Maddie's blood was found in the apartment - that the lab which did the testing said that they couldn't even tell whether it was blood let alone whether it was Maddie's!

[andU]

Well... I think it speaks volumes that the BBC and the broadsheet newspapers have hardly covered the case at all. Several months ago they condemned the tabloids for manufacturing stories in order to keep up sales and said they would only report facts when there were facts to report. And they've been largely silent!

Today there is a report which says that contrary to the tabloids saying that Maddie's blood was found in the apartment - that the lab which did the testing said that they couldn't even tell whether it was blood let alone whether it was Maddie's!

I can believe that. They blow everything out of proportion and/or invent something.

[Babootje]

Do you have a source for traces of sedation being found in the DNA?

Don't you think if the PJ had evidence they would have arrested someone?

It has been a while, when I read that. It was in one of the newspapers. I try to look it up for you.

The thing is, why the police did not arrest them, is that the traces they found in the appartment en the rented car are so poor that they are not conclusive.
For instance, there the DNA that was found could belong to Maddie and the twins ass well, because it was not possible to get a full DNA profile from the poor material.
Furthermore the material found in the appartment was contaminated,
because the McCanns took care of that "the whole world and its dog" (as the PJ statet) had been in there before the police came. They litteraly took everything in their hands, opened doors and windows etc.

Although there are very strong leads, they are all circumstantial.
Furthermore, there is an enormous political pressure on this case.
Gerry McCann is a very high in rank member of the masonry; they have a lot of very influencial friends. So in fact the PJ has to proove guilt (beyond doubt) before they can be arrested.

[Jayelles]

It has been a while, when I read that. It was in one of the newspapers. I try to look it up for you.

Thank you.

The thing is, why the police did not arrest them, is that the traces they found in the appartment en the rented car are so poor that they are not conclusive.

The reason the police haven't areested them is because there is no proof that they harmed their daughter! In yesterday's papers, it was reported that the Portuguese police are admitting that there is no proof Madeleine is dead. For the past few months, they have been saying that they believe that she IS dead. It's just all a mess.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article559642.ece

For instance, there the DNA that was found could belong to Maddie and the twins ass well, because it was not possible to get a full DNA profile from the poor material.

Actually, we don't know anything about the DNA evidence because all that has been printed about it is tabloid speculation. There has been NO official statement about it. The newspapers this week said that they only found 17 cells in the car - which is really microscopic.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article541098.ece


Furthermore the material found in the appartment was contaminated,
because the McCanns took care of that "the whole world and its dog" (as the PJ statet) had been in there before the police came. They litteraly took everything in their hands, opened doors and windows etc.

You are blaming the McCanns for this? Are they also to blame for the cops and SOCO allegedly dropping their cigarette ash?


Although there are very strong leads, they are all circumstantial.
Furthermore, there is an enormous political pressure on this case.
Gerry McCann is a very high in rank member of the masonry; they have a lot of very influencial friends. So in fact the PJ has to proove guilt (beyond doubt) before they can be arrested.

There was certainly speculation on the Mirror gossip tabloid forum that Gerry McCann is a Mason, but do you have proof of this? I haven't seen it from any credible source and there is also the FACT that he is a Catholic - and a Glasgwegian Catholic at that. Catholics are not usually Freemasons (in fact Freemasonry goes against the Catholic faith).

If you are going to make statements "as fact" like this, please provide a source.

[Babootje]

Jayelles:
Herewith my first reaction:
The information that traces of drugs were found in DNA similar toe Maddies was in serveral papers ca. half september; o.a. Correio da Manha
It is difficult to recollect the older news but after searching I found the news on a Duch site: http://www.nu.nl/news/1235839/21/'Madeleine_gedood_door_drugs'.html
It states that the source of the information is the French paper Soir, and their source is the Portugese Police.
It states that traces of drugs were found in the bodily fluids found in the car the McCanns hired 25 days after the disappearance of Maddie.

Because the McCanns stated themselves that the DNA found in the hire car could be from the twinss (because the have DNA similar to Maddies) and the test the did on the twins and Kate, I assume the DNA must be Maddies.

Your statement that the PJ did not arrest the McCanns because there is no proof they harmed their daughter is the exact truth.
All the found evidence on itself can't point even out that Maddie is dead.

The scent of corpse and blood found by specially trained sniffer dogs was the reason of the turn in the investigation. That special scent only comes ca. 2 hours after death; with a child it could be earlier.
Before that, the parents were no suspects.
Snifferdogs found a few different traces of blood, one was not Maddies, one was Maddies. The named traces was found under a tile in the appartment and was not visible for the eye because of cleaning up. (Source is Correio da Manha, must look it up),
Furthermore the snifferdogs picked op a scent of corpse in the hire care en the same scent leading to the coast, where a big search was submitted. They also picked up the scent on cuddle cat and clothes of Kate.
Off course the PJ investigate there was no earlier or later death in the appartment in the weeks before and after the disappearance.
The scent on itself is not enough evidence, because it could not direct be linked to Maddie.
Correio da Manha reported also a found seringe with a tranquillizer on a commode in the bedroom of the children.

About the cuddle cat there were also strange statements made by Kate; at first she stated she found it on the floor and that was why she was alarmed, because Maddie always held it. In another statement cuddle cat was on a shelf out of reach of Maddie so that the kidnapper would have placed it there.

Furthermore there are the contradictions in statement of the McCann friends.
They stated regulary checks on the children. A computer reconstruction based on this statement pointed out that a kidnapper would have a few minutes to go in and out the appartment and take Maddie.
However, the waiters of the tapas restaurant did not see any of them leave the table, except Gerry and Russel O Brien, who stayed away for an hour, with the excuse that is daughter was ill and threw up (and he had to clean the bed) of which never found any proove like filthy bedsheets or a request of clean sheets.

You are right by stating that the PJ made mistakes at the beginning but they seriously did not think the worst at that time. Maddie could simply had been wandering off.
It was the McCanns that directly stated there was a kidnapping without ransom. But they themselves intelligent people (maybe watched CSI sometimes) let all their friends wandering in and out of the appartment.

For what I know about the free masonry and catolisism is that today both wont "bite" eachother. I try to find the article.
In the free masonry it is usage to cremate the death. That is perhaps why the interest of the PJ went out to a nearby crematorium, but a search there led to nothing.

[Jayelles]

Jayelles:
Herewith my first reaction:
The information that traces of drugs were found in DNA similar toe Maddies was in serveral papers ca. half september; o.a. Correio da Manha
It is difficult to recollect the older news but after searching I found the news on a Duch site: http://www.nu.nl/news/1235839/21/'Madeleine_gedood_door_drugs'.html
It states that the source of the information is the French paper Soir, and their source is the Portugese Police.
It states that traces of drugs were found in the bodily fluids found in the car the McCanns hired 25 days after the disappearance of Maddie.

Because the McCanns stated themselves that the DNA found in the hire car could be from the twinss (because the have DNA similar to Maddies) and the test the did on the twins and Kate, I assume the DNA must be Maddies.

Your statement that the PJ did not arrest the McCanns because there is no proof they harmed their daughter is the exact truth.
All the found evidence on itself can't point even out that Maddie is dead.

The scent of corpse and blood found by specially trained sniffer dogs was the reason of the turn in the investigation. That special scent only comes ca. 2 hours after death; with a child it could be earlier.
Before that, the parents were no suspects.
Snifferdogs found a few different traces of blood, one was not Maddies, one was Maddies. The named traces was found under a tile in the appartment and was not visible for the eye because of cleaning up. (Source is Correio da Manha, must look it up),
Furthermore the snifferdogs picked op a scent of corpse in the hire care en the same scent leading to the coast, where a big search was submitted. They also picked up the scent on cuddle cat and clothes of Kate.
Off course the PJ investigate there was no earlier or later death in the appartment in the weeks before and after the disappearance.
The scent on itself is not enough evidence, because it could not direct be linked to Maddie.
Correio da Manha reported also a found seringe with a tranquillizer on a commode in the bedroom of the children.

About the cuddle cat there were also strange statements made by Kate; at first she stated she found it on the floor and that was why she was alarmed, because Maddie always held it. In another statement cuddle cat was on a shelf out of reach of Maddie so that the kidnapper would have placed it there.

Furthermore there are the contradictions in statement of the McCann friends.
They stated regulary checks on the children. A computer reconstruction based on this statement pointed out that a kidnapper would have a few minutes to go in and out the appartment and take Maddie.
However, the waiters of the tapas restaurant did not see any of them leave the table, except Gerry and Russel O Brien, who stayed away for an hour, with the excuse that is daughter was ill and threw up (and he had to clean the bed) of which never found any proove like filthy bedsheets or a request of clean sheets.

You are right by stating that the PJ made mistakes at the beginning but they seriously did not think the worst at that time. Maddie could simply had been wandering off.
It was the McCanns that directly stated there was a kidnapping without ransom. But they themselves intelligent people (maybe watched CSI sometimes) let all their friends wandering in and out of the appartment.

For what I know about the free masonry and catolisism is that today both wont "bite" eachother. I try to find the article.
In the free masonry it is usage to cremate the death. That is perhaps why the interest of the PJ went out to a nearby crematorium, but a search there led to nothing.


There are so many points in your post that I want to address, but I have a heavy cold and I just want to have an early night.

Regarding the Crime Scene being trashed
There are numerous witnesses who have stated that the McCanns were beside themselves with anguish when they discovered Madeleine was missing - I really don't think they were in any state of mind to be concerned with preserving evidence - even if they did watch CSI (and we don't know that they did/do - I post on these forums and I have never seen a single episode of CSI - ever!). That is pure speculation.

Regarding the Waiters
The waiters in the bar were working - not standing watch over the McCanns. Just because the waiters didn't see them leave doesn't mean they didn't. Remember - prior to the 3rd May, they were just another family on holiday to these waiters. Some of the waiters sold stories to the tabloids at the end of the season - what kind of stories do you suppose would sell? The tabloids also twist things to suit their own purpose. An interview could have gone something like this:-

Journalist: Did you see the McCanns leave the table?
Waiter: No
Journlaist: Not even once?
Waiter: No
Journalist: Were you there all night?
Waiter: Yes

Headline - "Waiter says 'I was there all night and never saw the McCanns leave the table once"

Regarding the Sniffer Dogs
The sniffer dogs make false alerts all the time. That is not evidence. It's like geophys. You get a signal and you start digging. Sometimes you find nothing and sometimes you find treasure, but just because you get a signal, doesn't always mean there's treasure there.

Regarding the Blood
This week the newspapers said that the British labs said that they couldn't even tell whether the sample was blood - let alone whether it was Madeleine's blood. These apartments are let out for 20+ weeks of the year to families of 4-6 people on a weekly basis. People cut their feet on holidays because they walk around barefoot on beach holidays. There is a high possibility that a degraded blood sample on the floor of the apartment could belong to any one of several dozen people who'd stayed there over the previous months.

Regarding the Scent of Death
Apparently, the "scent of death" is a chemical substance (whose name I forget but it's like cadaver....") and it is also present in urine and semen amongst other things! Therefore, cadaver dogs can false alert on urine and semen.

Regarding the Portugues Police as a Source
I'm sorry, but the Portuguese police have proved to be a highly unreliable source of information. Just think of all the inaccurate and contradictory stories which have appeared over the months whose source was the Portuguese police.

[Babootje]

We will see. Never said it wasn't difficult

[Seashell]

We will see. Never said it wasn't difficult
I also had my doubts about the parents, they are negligent in my eyes for leaving those babies alone to go out wine and dine with the tapas 9.
I am also sitting tight and waiting to see what will come out sooner or later.
Time alone will tell.


Maddie you are not forgotten...:rose:

[Results]

I'd be interested in your source for Kate feeling that someone was watching/stalking her before Madeleine went missing (as opposed to thinking this with hindsight)?

I know that Gerry has said that "in retrospect" they feel that someone might have been watching them, but I've never seen any credible source which stated that prior to Madeleine's disappearance either McCann felt they were being watched/stalked.

When Gerry McCann stated in an interview that he thought the abductor might have actually hiding been in the apartment when he checked on the children one of the tabloid forums whipped itself into a frenzy over Gerry "thinking there was an abductor in the apartment and choosing to return to his meal regardless" - which of course was not at all what was said. Gerry McCann had been speaking "with hindsight".

I will have to look it up and I don't know if I will find it in time before the closing of CL. However, I expect to see you at our new community and I will let you know where I read that. I also want to let you know that I registered on the Mirror Forum as Results (any website I join I use the same name Results) and I made one post. This post was to ask did Gerry McCann really write that in his blog and was told I was so niave. The reason that I don't post there are read there since then is because if you are making things up about Gerry's blog as a joke that is pretty sick IMO. I don't know what happened to Maddy and I don't know who done what and for someone to print false accusations of Gerry writing in his blogs as a sense of humor that person needs help. IF I did get this from a tabloid as you say I will be the first one to stand corrected and apologize for posting tabloid BS. Since I don't read at the mirror I'm sure I read it here on CL but I will try to find it for you. I know on this case you have a strong opinion that the McCann's are innocent and I don't really know. Always know Jay that when I debate a case I don't take things personally and if I disagree with you on something that just means I don't have the same opinion as you do nor do you have the same opinion of mine. JMHO

To Eagle you posted lies on another forum about me and I do not appreciate it. I saw a post in which I felt you were down and I told you on the board that to don't worry about what others think and post away in what you believe. I thought I was encouraging you to not take things so personal and then you have the gall to try to start trouble with me and Jay. That is not right at all. I don't know Jay and I don't know you. I thought that I showed respect to everyone on this forum no matter what their opinions were and when someone doesn't have the same opinion as me I try to listen to their side to see if it fits better into the case of the most probable answer of what happened to Maddy.

One more thing I did think at some point that Jay was being disrespectful and I told her that she didn't want me to get disrespectful with her. After this encounter I saw that Jay wasn't posting much and I thought it was because of me. Since I really didn't have such a strong opinion and Jay did I backed away from the case hoping she would come back if it was me keeping her from this forum. Jay cared alot about this case and I was asked to come read about it and check it out so I felt that Jay should be here and I certainly never meant for her to leave. Eagle evidently because I left you said I was banned for having it out with Jay which was a lie. I have never been banned from CL nor CTV. I also want you to know Eagle that because of the incident with the updates from Odette she stopped updating because you drug her name into something that was not true. I am furious about that because Odette is my best friend. Can you acknowledge a pattern that you are doing Eagle? If this is the way that you are going to act to cause trouble between posters that you don't even know then I hope that you stand down and don't move with us to the new community because from what I have seen that you have done is create trouble between posters and this is unacceptable in my book. You should be ashamed of yourself and if you aren't ashamed please know that I am ashamed for you.

This is all I have to say on the matter!

Forgot to add I did exchange PM's with Jay and asked her to post a response from me to you on that forum and I hope you read it there as well as here. Jay I do appreciate you telling me what was going on and posting my response since I could not. I think you showed your true character to PM me and ask me if I was saying things about you and what was being said about me. I have great respect for you for letting me know this was going on and I hope you do realize how much I appreciate the heads up especially since you thought I was talking bad about you. If I ever have anything bad to say to anyone they are the first to know. So, don't believe lies when it is said Results is talking about you because I promise you you will be the first one to know. Again thank you for the heads up and see ya at the new community....I'm so excited!

Everyone please have a wonderful and safe Holiday because I want to see my neighbors at our new neighborhood in 2008! God bless you all! Merry Christmas!

[Babootje]

Yesterday in an article in This is London (Evening Standard) in an interview the mayor of Praia da Luz stated that Kate and Gerry McCann in his opinion were guilty of abandoning their children the evening of May 3. And that the PJ was wrong to let them leave Portugal, because the crime happened in Portugal and they are arguido's at least of abandoning Madeleine and the twins.

In an article today in Daily Express, the mother of Robert Murat accuses Methodo 3, the private detectives of the McCanns of bribing witnesses to change their stories. Furthermore she states that the friends of the McCanns that saw Robert Murat around the appartment that night are "extremely mistaken" for she knows he was with her all evening.
She furthermore states that the lifes of her and her son are devastated although they are completely innocent. The McCanns in fact are at least guilty for abandoning their children.

In a reaction the spokesman of the McCanns states:
“We are not going to get into a row and she is entitled to her own opinion, but Kate and Gerry felt they had done everything possible for their children on May 3 and that they were perfectly safe.
“They feel they did not do anything wrong and had been caring for their children in the best way possible.
“Nobody regrets more than them what actually happened.”
------------------

I still find it shocking that the McCanns repeatedly say that they have done everything possible for their children to be perfectly safe while they didn't even bothered to hire the babysit service the Ocean Club provides in.
I can imagine that you do not think of this to happen, but it happened and as a mother I would - at least now - FEEL guilty I left them alone.

But were they affraid that they would be charged of neglicence? Is that why the tapas 9. tuned up their stories in a way that rised the suspicion of the PJ, Their statements (regular checks on the children) is contradicted by the waiters at the tapas bar who waited their table.
Is that the reason why they, in fact, the McCanns refused to cooporate with the PJ? That they were affraid to be charged wit neglect and tried to cover up?
If that is the case, I can't understand, such egoism. The main thing has to be, to find your child a.s.a.p.
If the McCanns are innocent, I cannot understand their manners after the dissapearance. In short:
Not cooperating with the PJ.
Neglecting the advise of the PJ not to spread any pictures or marks to prevent an abductor to harm Madeleine.

-----------------
Furthermore a special fund set up in a bid to find Madeleine has been used to pay for the services of Barcelona-based Metodo 3.
The firm is being paid £50,000 a month in a six-month contract.

--------
For ca. one mond the agency stated dat they were at the tail of the abductor. Now it is very quit from that direction. Maybe 50.000 pounds a month will not speed up the case.
There is a lot of critism about the way they question witnesses, by showing them one photograph (of Murat) by asking if they have seen this man.

[Babootje]

I will have to look it up and I don't know if I will find it in time before the closing of CL. .... I also want you to know Eagle that because of the incident with the updates from Odette she stopped updating .....the new community ......... Again thank you for the heads up and see ya at the new community....I'm so excited!


What a shame CL stops,:shrug: I did not know.
I did ask myself why Odette stopped updating/translating. I regret that because I highly appreciated the service.
Please let me know the url of the new community.
Kind regards

[Seashell]

What a shame CL stops,:shrug: I did not know.
I did ask myself why Odette stopped updating/translating. I regret that because I highly appreciated the service.
Please let me know the url of the new community.
Kind regards

www.320sycamore.com its opening on the 1st jan. 2008 see you there! :rose:

[Eagle1]

Hey Eagle!

I for one don't care about the personal attacks. I have the right to my opinion and my VERY HONEST OPINION IS they are guilty either way. If she was kidnapped they are responsible. When a Mother feels like her children are being watched you don't leave them alone for who ever is watching your children to have an opportunity to take them. I don't buy their story for that reason. Some one is stalking you but you just go right ahead and leave the children alone? Something not right here. JMHO


I agree with you about this, and can't yet find a post by you that I just received an email notification for. Because of the Christmas rush I'm not posting much, only read one notification, finally, this morning. I may have to print it out and later, much later after Christmas rush, pm it to you along with brief explanation of truth, what was really going on.

We've very soundly defeated nations who "mess with" Americans, and yet, doesn't anyone notice, we tolerate being called stupid, enough to read tabloids, by a rep from one evidently, judging by what all you said, playing us against each other by pm's?


There's actually a TOS that NOBODY can bring anything here from another forum! Does anyone remember?

You're all my witnesses that I've been consistently admiring of both Results and Odette, would not have caused her any discouragement in any way.

Ask yourself, could someone else have been flat out jealous of her and making trouble behind the scenes? I especially was being accused constantly of posting tabloid stuff, and part of my defense was that nobody's doing that, and we've even gotten lazy and been letting Odette do all the work. Whatever you fell for, maybe Riviera did too? Shall we have a New Years Resolution not to believe everything we hear? Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas and New Year to all.

[Eagle1]

I would have worded this a little better but time had expired so maybe it's okay as is.

Merry Christmas.

[andU]

I agree with you about this, and can't yet find a post by you that I just received an email notification for. Because of the Christmas rush I'm not posting much, only read one notification, finally, this morning. I may have to print it out and later, much later after Christmas rush, pm it to you along with brief explanation of truth, what was really going on.

We've very soundly defeated nations who "mess with" Americans, and yet, doesn't anyone notice, we tolerate being called stupid, enough to read tabloids, by a rep from one evidently, judging by what all you said, playing us against each other by pm's?


There's actually a TOS that NOBODY can bring anything here from another forum! Does anyone remember?
You're all my witnesses that I've been consistently admiring of both Results and Odette, would not have caused her any discouragement in any way.

Ask yourself, could someone else have been flat out jealous of her and making trouble behind the scenes? I especially was being accused constantly of posting tabloid stuff, and part of my defense was that nobody's doing that, and we've even gotten lazy and been letting Odette do all the work. Whatever you fell for, maybe Riviera did too? Shall we have a New Years Resolution not to believe everything we hear? Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas and New Year to all.

The part of this that I am addressing is in red (I hope). You are the one who cross posts and carrys grudges from one board to another. Eagle, we are all co-posters; it doesn't matter what country a poster lives in nor what color their skin/hair color/eyes are. I think you have a problem, Eagle.

[Results]

I agree with you about this, and can't yet find a post by you that I just received an email notification for. Because of the Christmas rush I'm not posting much, only read one notification, finally, this morning. I may have to print it out and later, much later after Christmas rush, pm it to you along with brief explanation of truth, what was really going on.

Results says I seen your post no need to PM with any truth. The truth is in black and white I never wrote a cryptic post in my life.

We've very soundly defeated nations who "mess with" Americans, and yet, doesn't anyone notice, we tolerate being called stupid, enough to read tabloids, by a rep from one evidently, judging by what all you said, playing us against each other by pm's?

Results says you need to reread this sentence. You should be ashamed of this one out of all of them. The US fights racism everyday and our nation is built on the foundation of "IN GOD WE TRUST". So, now Americans should hate anyone that is not American?

There's actually a TOS that NOBODY can bring anything here from another forum! Does anyone remember?

Results says child molestors have to register to the sheriff dept to let the neighborhood know they have a predator in their neighborhood and I say the same things goes for this community. I want to know my neighbor and if you take my name and use it on another forum that I'm not a member of I have the right to defend myself when you accuse me of doing something on CL. Should have posted that post on CL but no you took it to another board therefore it SHOULD NOT BE AGAINST TOS RULES SINCE YOU SAID I WAS BANNED FROM CL FOR 5 DAYS! I should have the right to defend myself of allegations against me on another board if it affects this message board, CL, which it does.


My responses are in bold!

[andU]

Results, I totally agree with your post! Please know that Eagle does not speak for every American citizen.

[Scarrlett]

I will have to look it up and I don't know if I will find it in time before the closing of CL. However, I expect to see you at our new community and I will let you know where I read that. I also want to let you know that I registered on the Mirror Forum as Results (any website I join I use the same name Results) and I made one post. This post was to ask did Gerry McCann really write that in his blog and was told I was so niave. The reason that I don't post there are read there since then is because if you are making things up about Gerry's blog as a joke that is pretty sick IMO. I don't know what happened to Maddy and I don't know who done what and for someone to print false accusations of Gerry writing in his blogs as a sense of humor that person needs help. IF I did get this from a tabloid as you say I will be the first one to stand corrected and apologize for posting tabloid BS. Since I don't read at the mirror I'm sure I read it here on CL but I will try to find it for you. I know on this case you have a strong opinion that the McCann's are innocent and I don't really know. Always know Jay that when I debate a case I don't take things personally and if I disagree with you on something that just means I don't have the same opinion as you do nor do you have the same opinion of mine. JMHO

To Eagle you posted lies on another forum about me and I do not appreciate it. I saw a post in which I felt you were down and I told you on the board that to don't worry about what others think and post away in what you believe. I thought I was encouraging you to not take things so personal and then you have the gall to try to start trouble with me and Jay. That is not right at all. I don't know Jay and I don't know you. I thought that I showed respect to everyone on this forum no matter what their opinions were and when someone doesn't have the same opinion as me I try to listen to their side to see if it fits better into the case of the most probable answer of what happened to Maddy.

One more thing I did think at some point that Jay was being disrespectful and I told her that she didn't want me to get disrespectful with her. After this encounter I saw that Jay wasn't posting much and I thought it was because of me. Since I really didn't have such a strong opinion and Jay did I backed away from the case hoping she would come back if it was me keeping her from this forum. Jay cared alot about this case and I was asked to come read about it and check it out so I felt that Jay should be here and I certainly never meant for her to leave. Eagle evidently because I left you said I was banned for having it out with Jay which was a lie. I have never been banned from CL nor CTV. I also want you to know Eagle that because of the incident with the updates from Odette she stopped updating because you drug her name into something that was not true. I am furious about that because Odette is my best friend. Can you acknowledge a pattern that you are doing Eagle? If this is the way that you are going to act to cause trouble between posters that you don't even know then I hope that you stand down and don't move with us to the new community because from what I have seen that you have done is create trouble between posters and this is unacceptable in my book. You should be ashamed of yourself and if you aren't ashamed please know that I am ashamed for you.

This is all I have to say on the matter!

Forgot to add I did exchange PM's with Jay and asked her to post a response from me to you on that forum and I hope you read it there as well as here. Jay I do appreciate you telling me what was going on and posting my response since I could not. I think you showed your true character to PM me and ask me if I was saying things about you and what was being said about me. I have great respect for you for letting me know this was going on and I hope you do realize how much I appreciate the heads up especially since you thought I was talking bad about you. If I ever have anything bad to say to anyone they are the first to know. So, don't believe lies when it is said Results is talking about you because I promise you you will be the first one to know. Again thank you for the heads up and see ya at the new community....I'm so excited!

Everyone please have a wonderful and safe Holiday because I want to see my neighbors at our new neighborhood in 2008! God bless you all! Merry Christmas!
Dear Results,
So that is what happened to Odette!This is my first post and I joined crime library because I had stummbled onto Odettes` page.For many months I only needed to view her posts to get ALL accurate info on Mccanns.I thought she was paid to do this because it was so entailed and professional.That is alot of work for one person to do on her own with no reward.I,for one would like to thank you and hope you come back.There are lots of others who also followed you even if we do not post;we are here and appreiciate your hard work for ALL of us.
Now you are moving.How will I find our new home?Will you please let me know?
I also wish everyone a safe and happy holiday and thanks for wishing me a happy B-day. Who knows;maybe that quirky Metodo 3 guy will have Madeleine home by Xmas.I do not know what to make of that guy.What do you think? This is a good time for a miracle....Thanks again,Scarrlett

[Jayelles]

Ditto regarding all Odette's hard work. She did an awesome job in bringing us news updates this year. Not just in sourcing them, but in presenting them in such a professional format.

Regarding Metodo 3. It said in the news either yesterday or the day before that the McCanns have asked them to stop saying that they know who has Madeleine and that she'll be hmoe by Christmas. They are worried that IF indeed she is alive and IF indeed Metodo 3 are closing in on her captors, that their statements will alert the captors and that they will harm Madeleine. This had been my concern also. I thought their announcements were ill-advised.

[Babootje]

Dear Results,
So that is what happened to Odette!This is my first post and I joined crime library because I had stummbled onto Odettes` page.For many months I only needed to view her posts to get ALL accurate info on Mccanns.I thought she was paid to do this because it was so entailed and professional.That is alot of work for one person to do on her own with no reward.I,for one would like to thank you and hope you come back.There are lots of others who also followed you even if we do not post;we are here and appreiciate your hard work for ALL of us.
Now you are moving.How will I find our new home?Will you please let me know?
I also wish everyone a safe and happy holiday and thanks for wishing me a happy B-day. Who knows;maybe that quirky Metodo 3 guy will have Madeleine home by Xmas.I do not know what to make of that guy.What do you think? This is a good time for a miracle....Thanks again,Scarrlett
The same for me too, I also stumbled onto Odettes page and so became a member of CL. I followed for months only reading the update's. I highly appreciated especially the translations of the Portuguese papers. Pity she stopped. I sure will attend your new page.
I also hope for a quick outcome of the case, although I do think Maddie isn't among us anymore.
Today the Daily Mail stated that forensic tests are ongoing. Now they send new (not tested) evidence from the blood residues found in the appartment to the FSS in Birmingham.

McCanns 'back in the frame' after new Maddy apartment evidence is sent to the UK
Last updated at 11:32am on 18th December 2007

New evidence means police are convinced Maddy died in the flat
Portuguese police are sending new forensic material in the Madeleine McCann case to British scientists, it was revealed today.

The previously untested evidence is believed to come from the holiday apartment where she was last seen.

The move indicates that police in Portugal are maintaining their case that Madeleine died in the flat on the night of 3 May and that Kate and Gerry remain prime suspects.

It is believed that the latest tests are designed to bolster the original forensic results from the apartment, which are believed to have found traces of Madeleine's blood.

Experts from the Forensic Science laboratory in Birmingham will also conduct separate tests to establish where DNA already found in the McCanns' apartment came from.

To do this, further samples from the dozens of people who were in the apartment either before or after the girl disappeared are being sent to the laboratory.
Test results are believed to indicate that police in Portugal are maintaing their case that Maddy died in the flat and that Kate and Gerry remain prime suspects
The decision to submit the new forensic material was taken after a meeting in Leicestershire between Portuguese detectives and the British scientists.
Sources close to the investigation say that the aim is to "bring into sharper focus" the results previously sent to Portugal and to remove any possible alternative explanations for these findings.
Today's disclosures follow persistent claims, in the UK and Portugal, that the value of the forensic findings had been wrecked by the police failure to seal off the scene for weeks.
Sceptics have also claimed that the slow pace of the Portuguese investigation mean that the inquiry is running aground.
Sources in Britain dismiss such claims and say that although progress is methodical rather than spectacular, the new tests are intended to firm up the case being built by Portuguese detectives.
"New material is being sent and tests will be conducted to eliminate some people and to shine a brighter light on the results that have already been found," said one source close to the investigation."
"There is no dramatic change in the course of the inquiry and although progress might be slower than some people might expect, that does not mean that nothing is happening."
The new forensic tests come three months after a first batch of findings were sent to Portugal by experts from the Forensic Science Service.
The arrival of these initial results led to the McCanns being named as official suspects, although both continue to strongly deny any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.
No official confirmation of what these tests found has been provided, but leaks from Portugal suggest they include spots of Madeleine's blood in the Praia da Luz apartment and traces of her bodily fluids and hair in the couple's hire car.

[Babootje]

Furthermore it is in the UK media that the waiter, who waited the McCann table the night Maddie dissapeared (key witness in the Maddie case) gone into hiding, affraid of the McCann PR machine and the Methodo 3 detectives.

One of the reactions I herewith place (check the funny nickname of Methodo 3).

WHO IS HE HIDING FROM?

18.12.07, 8:43am

The media Team McCanns private detectives that have been interfering with witneses and making stupid press statements as they bring us stories of dramatic rescues of American children, and imminent solving of the case the world best police forces have failed to solve.

Why are their so few witnesses prepared to step forward, the media pressure being applied by the McCanns and their dodgy political PR team means that any witness knows they will be the center of world wide speculation for months.

There are dozens of witnesses from that night, and to choose to step into the media circus that Team McCann created and keep rolling means that they will be scrutinised and victimised like Murat and his familly.

Are we surpprised that these people fail to step up to the plate and provide the PJ with all the evidence they have, the media circus and Retardo 3 are designed to prevent this from happening.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" seems to be the moto of the pro McCanns and it means just that, any witness with a secret in their past will have it dug up by the press or Retardo 3 and broadcast to the world.

So this proves that one does not have to threaten witnesses with violence to intimidate them not to give evidence any minor misdemeanor committed in the past will be dug up and used to discredit or threaten witnesses.

This case has proven that witness tampering is the way to go if you have the contacts financial backers or money to carry it off.

WITH THESE STRATEGIES YOU CAN PROBABLY GET AWAY WITH MURDER but certainly escape prosecution for CHILD ABUSE / ENDANGERMENT /ABANDONMENT / NEGLECT.

Let us not forget these parents CHOSE the opportunity to socialise with their friends over the safety of their children and Madeline paid the ultimate price!

[Results]

I have contacted Odette to come by the forum and read what wonderful things were being said about her from some magnificent posters. Odette was the first person on CL to receive CL poster of the month. The first thing Odette said to me when she won that month that she was expecting any recognition that she was only doing it because she enjoyed it and wanted to. If you go around the threads at CL you will see that this isn't the only case that Odette kept updates going. Odette is the most compassionate person I know that truly cares about many cases and I'm honored that she is my friend. Odette is a loyal CL member and she will be certainly at the new forum. Hope to see everyone there! This is for you Update Queen! :rose:

I can't imagine that these people that work for the McCanns do not consult them on any new information they get about their daughter before making a public statement. The McCanns are paying them, correct?

[Jayelles]

I have contacted Odette to come by the forum and read what wonderful things were being said about her from some magnificent posters. Odette was the first person on CL to receive CL poster of the month. The first thing Odette said to me when she won that month that she was expecting any recognition that she was only doing it because she enjoyed it and wanted to. If you go around the threads at CL you will see that this isn't the only case that Odette kept updates going. Odette is the most compassionate person I know that truly cares about many cases and I'm honored that she is my friend. Odette is a loyal CL member and she will be certainly at the new forum. Hope to see everyone there! This is for you Update Queen! :rose:

I can't imagine that these people that work for the McCanns do not consult them on any new information they get about their daughter before making a public statement. The McCanns are paying them, correct?


Well I am at the stage where I simply take anything published by the newspapers with a huge pinch of salt (unless it's the Telegraph or Times or something like that and they aren't writing much about the case at all), but the daily (tabloid) newspapers said that the McCanns were apparently "furious" at the statements made by Metodo 3 and are now reviewing their contract with them because it was felt that the comments were careless. I think they are making stuff up to keep the story going and to sell newspapers.

What has been published in todays newspapers which is probably true though is that Murat translated the McCanns & co's early police interviews for the police. THAT needs to be checked out.

It's all just one huge mess. I agree that the McCanns made a huge error of judgement but I think we're all capable of making errors of judgement. Fortunately, few of us will pay the price they have paid.

With regards to the waiter who sold his story to the tabloids, there are several points:-

1) He said the McCanns never left the table all evening - how could he possibly know this? Why was he watching the McCanns all evening? Wasn't he doing his job?

2) Bear in mind that the McCanns weren't well known at this point - they were just another family who'd been there on vacation for a week. I can understand them attracting attention later - but at that point they were unknown.

3) He sold his story at the end of the season - when he'd been paid off for the winter - coincidence?

4) Doesn't anyone think it's even slightly suspicious that anyone would have been watching the McCanns at all? Why would he watch a family all evening? If I were an investigator, I'd be asking this question.

These waiters work really hard (usually). The Tapas Bar had inside tables and outside tables. I find it really hard to believe that any waiter who was doing his job properly would be a credible witness regarding whether one particular couple hadn't moved from their table all evening. There would be times when the waiter would be at the bar (back turned towards the restaurant) or outside (not seeing inside tables) or inside (not seeing outside tables) or interacting with other customers - not watching other customer.

Also, the newspaper which reported the waiter's story said he corroborated Nanny Pennington's story - but her story in her own words was completely contradictory! The newspaper claimed that the waiter said Kate McCann called from the balcony "They've taken her!" and that this supported Nanny Pennington's version of events. However, nanny Pennington was interviewed on tv and she said that she wasn't there at the very start. That she had been working in the creche and that another parent came in and told her a child was missing.

Too many contradictions to draw a fair and accurate conclusion.

[Results]

Nothing makes sense to me in this case?

[Seashell]

Nothing makes sense to me in this case?
yup :shrug: God only knows what really happened.

[Seashell]

I already pm Odette and praised her for the work she has been doing on CL i also would like to see her back here and carrying on her good works, please Odette i know you are busy but you are a valuable member who keeps us updated as well as informed from the proper sources.

:rose:

[Babootje]

[QUOTE=Jayelles;9084679] I agree with you, that Media now is making up stories to have something to tell. However in general the feeling grows that within few weeks someting must come out.

About the waiter: I never heard he sold his story to the papers.
The news is "leaked" from sources nearby the investigation. Otherwise he (the waiter) did not know what the statement of Kate was at that time.
Ad 1.) The waiter did what he had to do. He waited their (McCanns) table. He did not say the McCanns never left the table all evening. He only said dat they did not check every 30 minutes, and when they did check only the male guests did (including Gerry at one time). Keep in mind, it wasn't a very big restaurant.

Ad 2.) The McCanns ate every evening in that restaurant. They were there already some days (a small week). They ate every evening in the same restaurant with a big group of people, who drank a lot (liquers and at least 12 bottles of wine every night.). May be that is wat attracted attention. When a big group of people comes wining and dining every evening, I think the waiter knows them.

Ad 3) I never heard he sold his story. For what I know his statement was taken by the PJ in the beginning of the investigation. It is one of the reasons (the contradictions in the statements of the waiter (who at that time had nothing to gain) and the McCanns, why the question rised: why did Kate McCann alarmed from the veranda shouting: They've taken her (because Madeleine could have been easy wandered off). And iff not: and she was sure that an abduction (without ransom, they said) took place, why let the twins alone and go to the restaurant.

Ad 4.) The waiter was simply waiting the table of the McCanns. It wasn't a very big restaurant although there were inside and outside tables. Mostly a waiter has his own (tables) on the same spot. A good waiter must be very attentive on his guests.
Furthermore I think the PJ may be have asked the question you now ask and got a reasonable answer. I don't think you become an arguido iff there is nothing.

About the Nanny Pennington's story : You could be right here. I do not believe everything that is written.
But the waiter seems a reliable witness otherwise the PJ wouldn't see him as a key witness (and Nanny Pennington is not)

But I agree, that there are too many contradictions to draw a fair and accurate conclusion. We don't know the real facts at this time and we have to do it with the media, of which there are clearly pro McCann media and contra McCann media.
But I sure think they (the PJ) has something, otherwise (when it was clear) they wouldn't still do forensic testing.

[Jayelles]

[QUOTE=Jayelles;9084679] I agree with you, that Media now is making up stories to have something to tell. However in general the feeling grows that within few weeks someting must come out.

About the waiter: I never heard he sold his story to the papers.
The news is "leaked" from sources nearby the investigation. Otherwise he (the waiter) did not know what the statement of Kate was at that time.
Ad 1.) The waiter did what he had to do. He waited their (McCanns) table. He did not say the McCanns never left the table all evening. He only said dat they did not check every 30 minutes, and when they did check only the male guests did (including Gerry at one time). Keep in mind, it wasn't a very big restaurant.

Ad 2.) The McCanns ate every evening in that restaurant. They were there already some days (a small week). They ate every evening in the same restaurant with a big group of people, who drank a lot (liquers and at least 12 bottles of wine every night.). May be that is wat attracted attention. When a big group of people comes wining and dining every evening, I think the waiter knows them.

Ad 3) I never heard he sold his story. For what I know his statement was taken by the PJ in the beginning of the investigation. It is one of the reasons (the contradictions in the statements of the waiter (who at that time had nothing to gain) and the McCanns, why the question rised: why did Kate McCann alarmed from the veranda shouting: They've taken her (because Madeleine could have been easy wandered off). And iff not: and she was sure that an abduction (without ransom, they said) took place, why let the twins alone and go to the restaurant.

Ad 4.) The waiter was simply waiting the table of the McCanns. It wasn't a very big restaurant although there were inside and outside tables. Mostly a waiter has his own (tables) on the same spot. A good waiter must be very attentive on his guests.
Furthermore I think the PJ may be have asked the question you now ask and got a reasonable answer. I don't think you become an arguido iff there is nothing.

About the Nanny Pennington's story : You could be right here. I do not believe everything that is written.
But the waiter seems a reliable witness otherwise the PJ wouldn't see him as a key witness (and Nanny Pennington is not)

But I agree, that there are too many contradictions to draw a fair and accurate conclusion. We don't know the real facts at this time and we have to do it with the media, of which there are clearly pro McCann media and contra McCann media.
But I sure think they (the PJ) has something, otherwise (when it was clear) they wouldn't still do forensic testing.

The waiter's (non) story was all over the tabloids immediately after the complex closed down for winter. He did claim that they never left the table in the tabloid story that I saw. If, as you say, he merely claimed that they didn't check every 30 minutes, then I'm afraid IMO that this only serves to make his sotry even more ridiculous - not only was he watching them, but now it seems that he was also timing them? It may not have been a huge restaurant, but it has been reported from several sources that it was a very popular and busy one and that customers used to queue up in the morning to book tables there. There is no doubt in my mind that any waiter working there would have been too busy to study the movements of one table of customers who at that point were unknown!

So you believe the "reliable" waiter but you don't believe Nanny Pennington? Well I'll give you one good reason why in this case, I would tend to believe the Nanny and not the waiter. The Nanny said that she learned of Madeleine's disappearance from a parent who was collecting a child. That is something which can be VERY easily verified. The waiter claims the McCans never left the table all evening - yet there are witnesses who claim to have spoken to Gerry McCann on one of these trips that the waiter says didn't take place. The waiter may be saying all the things that someone wanting to frame the parents might want to hear, but his story just doesn't hold water - for the above reason and all the other reasons I gave in a previous post.

However, I'm not going to waste any more time debating tabloid fairy stories with you Babootje. There are forums which thrive on such discussions - this isn't one of them.

[Jayelles]

I googled this story to find it's source and here it is - the Daily Star!:-

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/24152/Maddie-We-find-missing-witness

The Daily Star is one of the worst tabloid rags we have here - it is renowned for publishing garbage. Don't take my word for it - Google it and see for yourself.

However, in Googling this story I found several statements attributed to the "watching waiter":-

1) They never left their table all night
2) Only the men checked on the kids
3) The never left their table between 9-10
4) They didn't check as often as every 30 minutes
5) They checked the kids every 20 minutes

This is why I sound so cynical these days. This is absolutely typical of the reporting in the McCann case and why so many Brits simply don't believe the press any more.

Let us not forget that the Portuguese police also claimed that the McCanns hid her body in a tiny fridge - not much bigger than a minibar and when the absurdity of this was pointed out, changed it to say that they must have persuaded someone local to let them hide her body in a their freezer!

Let us also not forget that the Portuguese police claimed that the McCanns had killed her with an overdose of sedative - then later changed this to her having died as a result of a fall down the stairs outside the apartment...... Then claimed that she'd died inside the apartment...

How anyone can continue to believe anything that comes from "the source close to the Portuguese police" simply defeats me.

Today's newspapers are saying that the Portuguese POlice blame the McCanns for sidetracking the investigation. The newspaper claims that the Portuguese Police say that because the McCanns were so distressed and claiming that their daughter had been taken from the apartment that this is what made them follow that line of enquiry initially - what? It beggars belief. There's another reason why the McCanns might have been so distressed and saying that their daughter had been taken - i.e. because that was what happened. They also say that they may never solve the case because the evidence doesn't support a McCann did it scenario. Ehm - could this possibly be because the McCann's didn't do it? Experts agree they had no motive and that they didn't have "opportunity".

This weeks newspapers also claimed that the McCanns left the day after they were made arguidos - like this was suspicious. In fact, the McCanns had announced their intention to leave several weeks previously. Gerry had been wanting to go home for some time and it was Kate who had been refusing to leave until they found Madeleine. We all knew they were coming home. Indeed they had been criticised for STAYING in Portugal so long! Then days before they were due to leave, they were taken in for questioning and made arguidos - but were allowed to leave AS PLANNED. Now they are trying to make out that they "fled" after being made arguidos? It's disgusting.

[Babootje]

Jayelles: please just read what I am writing:
That the waiters story was (not only in the tabloids but also) in respected newspapers in Portugal will not implicate that he "sold" the story.
Furthermore, it is use in this work that as a waiter you do not waite al the tables in a restaurant but you have your own area. The McCanns were dining in the Tapas restaurant EVERY NIGHT so you can't say they at that time were unknown. Possible that the group even had their lunches in the same spot, when they were at the pool nearby. I believe the group was well known by the waiters working in the Tapas bar.
The interrogations of people present that evening had taken place shortly after het disappearance of Maddie. The waiter involved at that time could not possibly know that his statement would not be consistent with the statements of the McCanns. The PJ reviewed three times and concluded that this witness is reliable. (Note: I do not say he is reliable, but the PJ concluded that he is reliable, based on their interrogations: they have the whole story, we do not.)

Even so I did not say I don't believe Nanny Pennington. You reacted on the article in the Britisch media that the Nanny's statement bolstered the waiters statement. Of that I said that this could be true, I also do not believe everything that is in the media without any doubt.
It is not true that the waiter claims the McCanns never left the table that evening. He claimes that only the male guests (later pointed to O'Brien, Oldfield and McCann) left at some point the table. There were no REGULAR checks. He also could tell the police about what time that was. So far the (note: independent) statement of the waiter is consistent with the witnesses (excluding Tapas Nine). The fact that the waiter could tell the time Gerry left which is consistent with the statement of the producer who met Gerry, brings the PJ to the conclusion that the statement of the waiter (pointing out that the timeframe Gerry (and O Brien) leaving the table is correct. So why wouldn't the rest be true? The waiter had nothing to gain with giving a false statement. Why would he want to frame the McCanns?
So your statement that the waiter claims no one left the table that evening is inaccurate. He only claims there were no REGULAR checks.

Note that the Nanny's statement DOES NOT contradict the statement of the waiter, simply because - as you said - she even wasn't there at the time Kate raised the alarm. (She learned of Maddie's disappearance from a parent who was collecting a child.)

Iff the McCanns are involved with the disappearance of Maddie one can not say. But I do believe that the group discussed their strategy maybe because they were affraid to be charged with neglect by leaving their children alone (of which in my opinion they certainly are guilty).

I based my opinion on respected media (no sensation tabloids like the sun). I put articles from British press next to articles in Portuguese press like Diaro da Noticas, a very reliable paper. Those are no fairy tale stories.
But I see in your last sentence that clearly no one may have another opinion than that the McCanns are totally innocent or otherwise you don't like to discuss...

[Jayelles]

Here is Nanny Pennington's statement. It was in the Daily Mail, but she was also interviewed on one of the tv documentaries and repeated it there (also this is a quoted statement rather than paraphrased and that always tends to have a little more weight):-

After tea Miss Pennington went to work at the resort's evening creche, in which parents could leave their children while they went out for supper.

Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her child from the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man, who had been shouting a name.

"She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-child procedure. In these situations, the first thing we do is investigate the scene.

"We knew that one of the other nanny's charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.

"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.

"When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her. They've taken her!'

Asked if it was the only thing she said, Miss Pennington answered: "It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it. She also repeated Madeleine's name and said: 'She's gone, she's gone'.

"I couldn't really believe what I was seeing - she was just so distraught. She was screaming out and tears were running down her face.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483715&in_page_id=1770

One point I'd make about Kate saying "They've taken her" (and I think I've made this point before) is that it could be a colloqualism. Kate McCann has a strong midland accent and comes from a working class background. I really don't see that this is "evidence". It is a common British colloqialism to say "they" instead of "he" or "she".

On Pat Brown's website (she is the criminal profiler who considers herself to be so good that she can judge a case without interviewing the people involved or seeing the police files) she criticised Gerry McCann's use of english hinting that his use of words were "suspicious". I asked her how many British people she had profiled and in particular, how many Scots she had profiled. I was intereted in established how experienced she was in dealing with the Scots tongue. I checked back some weeks later and although she had answered other questions, she had declined to answer mine.

The fact is - Brits and particularly Scots and anyone living north of London DO use the English language in a different way from BBC english.

For example, English people would say "I have to go to the shops" - Scots will say "I've GOT to go to the shops". Scots refer to shopping as "messages". If a Scot asks you "Did you get my messages?", they aren't necessarily referring to text messages or voicemail. They could be referring to a pint of milk and a loaf of bread that they asked you to pick up on the way home!

Other common variations of english -

I was standing at the door....
I was stood at the door ...
I were stood at the door ....
I were stood standing at the door.....

These are colloquialisms - most are in common use but not proper use of English.

Gerry McCann is a Glasgow boy from a working class background who did well academically and moved to England! That is a classic recipe for peculiar use of English! Scots do tend to modify their use of language when in England in order to be understood. Also, people who grow up in working class backgrounds where the use of language is colloqial who then go on to become educated and have to speak with educated people tend to have a distinctive use of language - it never sounds quite natural. It always sounds as though they are choosing their words carefully and deliberately (they probably are because they are probably using words which they learned long after their verbal communication skills were established).

Kate doesn't sound like this. She sounds very ordinary. She sounds a "k" at the end of her "ings". Walkingk, goingk - it's her accent and it's considered "common" by many people. If she was making any effort to refine her voice, this would be one of the first things she'd address. I therefore have no reason to suppose that she'd drop other colloqualisms.

I read in the Ramsey case about the use of "bring" instead of "take" in the South. When you learn that it's a common expression, any suspicious meaning you'd take from it is lost.

Same goes in the McCann case IMO.

[Jayelles]

Jayelles: please just read what I am writing:
That the waiters story was (not only in the tabloids but also) in respected newspapers in Portugal will not implicate that he "sold" the story.


His "EXCLUSIVE" initial interviews were with tabloids. Just because these interviews were "reported" by other newspapers doesn't mean he wasn't paid by those tabloids for the "exclusive". That's generally the way it works. It's a reasonable assumption.

Furthermore, it is use in this work that as a waiter you do not waite al the tables in a restaurant but you have your own area. The McCanns were dining in the Tapas restaurant EVERY NIGHT so you can't say they at that time were unknown. Possible that the group even had their lunches in the same spot, when they were at the pool nearby. I believe the group was well known by the waiters working in the Tapas bar.

There is a world of difference between recognising a couple that you served a few times and claiming accurate knowledge of their movements when he was supposed to be working! It is an established fact that the McCanns were sitting at a table out beside the pool (even the waiter acknowledges that) - the Tapas bar wasn't so exclusive that each waiter would only have one table to serve. What about the times that the waiter was serving his other guests? What about the times when he was back at the kitchen to collect food? Is he claiming that this table of folks drank 10 bottles of wine and none of them left the table to visit the lavatory? How would he know whether they were at the lavatory or back at the apartment checking on their kids? His statement falls down on so many points that even some of the anti-McCann websites have poked fun at him. Common sense should tell us that a waiter in a very busy restaurant can't possibly testify with any accuracy about the movements on one particular couple UNLESS he was watching them all the time. A child check would have taken less than 5 minutes. I'm pretty sure that a waiter in such a restaurant could easily spend 5 minutes being otherwise occupied.

The interrogations of people present that evening had taken place shortly after het disappearance of Maddie. The waiter involved at that time could not possibly know that his statement would not be consistent with the statements of the McCanns. The PJ reviewed three times and concluded that this witness is reliable. (Note: I do not say he is reliable, but the PJ concluded that he is reliable, based on their interrogations: they have the whole story, we do not.)

You have a credible source for when these interrogations took place? I know I've read plenty of accounts of people who claimed they weren't interviewed - even when they had information which they felt was inmportant.

Also, what brings you to suppose that this waiter would have been a priority witness when the police were looking for an abductor for the early part of the investigation? The McCanns weren't suspects then. Why would they be interested in the statement of someone who wasn't at or near the apartment?

Any defence lawyer would shoot the waiter's statement full of holes.

Even so I did not say I don't believe Nanny Pennington. You reacted on the article in the Britisch media that the Nanny's statement bolstered the waiters statement. Of that I said that this could be true, I also do not believe everything that is in the media without any doubt.
It is not true that the waiter claims the McCanns never left the table that evening. He claimes that only the male guests (later pointed to O'Brien, Oldfield and McCann) left at some point the table. There were no REGULAR checks. He also could tell the police about what time that was. So far the (note: independent) statement of the waiter is consistent with the witnesses (excluding Tapas Nine). The fact that the waiter could tell the time Gerry left which is consistent with the statement of the producer who met Gerry, brings the PJ to the conclusion that the statement of the waiter (pointing out that the timeframe Gerry (and O Brien) leaving the table is correct. So why wouldn't the rest be true? The waiter had nothing to gain with giving a false statement. Why would he want to frame the McCanns?
So your statement that the waiter claims no one left the table that evening is inaccurate. He only claims there were no REGULAR checks.

Note that the Nanny's statement DOES NOT contradict the statement of the waiter, simply because - as you said - she even wasn't there at the time Kate raised the alarm. (She learned of Maddie's disappearance from a parent who was collecting a child.)

Iff the McCanns are involved with the disappearance of Maddie one can not say. But I do believe that the group discussed their strategy maybe because they were affraid to be charged with neglect by leaving their children alone (of which in my opinion they certainly are guilty).

I based my opinion on respected media (no sensation tabloids like the sun). I put articles from British press next to articles in Portuguese press like Diaro da Noticas, a very reliable paper. Those are no fairy tale stories.
But I see in your last sentence that clearly no one may have another opinion than that the McCanns are totally innocent or otherwise you don't like to discuss...

The tabloids are claiming that Nanny Pennington corroborates the waiter's statement but she doesn't. I only gave that as an example of how these newspapers which you are citing keep getting it wrong!

The British press is just as guilty of publishing garbage as any other nations tabloids. You say you are basing your opinion on respected media - yet you cite stuff published by The Star which is probably only kept off the bottom of the tabloid heap by the Daily Sport!

My opinion in this case is that there is no evidence that the McCanns harmed their daughter. In my book, that doesn't equate to a conclusion they must have done it and been very clever about covering their tracks. Considering the witch hunt they have been on, proving the McCanns' guilt is the only thing which can save the faces of the Portuguese police. Therefore I believe that if there had been the remotest evidence that the McCanns were involved, then they would have been arrested.

[Jayelles]

BTW, I found this comment on the waiter's story and thought it was quite funny:-

“FRIENDS ‘SHARED EIGHT BOTTLES OF WINE A NIGHT’” – Says Jose Baptista.

Yes, eight bottles between nine Britons. On holiday. In the sun. Indeed, is that all?


http://www.anorak.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/177088.html

[Babootje]

My opinion in this case is that there is no evidence that the McCanns harmed their daughter. In my book, that doesn't equate to a conclusion they must have done it and been very clever about covering their tracks. Considering the witch hunt they have been on, proving the McCanns' guilt is the only thing which can save the faces of the Portuguese police. Therefore I believe that if there had been the remotest evidence that the McCanns were involved, then they would have been arrested.

You are right at that. There is no evidence that the McCanns harmed their daughter. That is not what I can not believe too. But the fact indeed is, that they left their children alone in an appartment in a strange country every evening.
The reason why I think the waiter can be right by claiming there were no regular checks other than the checks of Oldfield, Gerry and O Brien (who went at the same time, has to do with the reconstruction that had taken place of the evening, pointing out that voor an abductor there was in fact less time voor an abductor to get into the appartment, get Maddie en go out unseen.
The reconstruction was based on the testimonies of the Tapas Nine and camera footage, of people wandering by.
If the group of friends lied about the checks to avoid a charge of neglect, than there was a true possibility for an abductor to take Maddie.

[Results]

These are questions that concern me about this whole case:

There are 3 children in the room and the oldest was taken. I would think she would be more of a risk then one of the younger ones. Maddy would more than likely attract public attention by crying for her Mommy or Daddy but the younger ones would not know what was really going on if someone took them.

I have to say that the famous "they took her" does seem odd. What made them so sure that Maddy didn't leave the apartment and so sure that she was taken?

Did the security guards indeed tell the McCann’s and their friends that robberies were occurring where they were staying at?

If the McCann’s and their friends were dinning out every night and leaving the kids alone why pick that night? What was different about that night that an intruder would pick that night instead of the earlier nights when the children were left alone? That leads me to the doctor that stayed with his daughter because she was sick so the intruder would then have to worry about when he was coming out of his apartment before "they" took Maddy.

IF (and I do say IF this is true) all the other nights that they went out to dine and the women did not go to check on their children why did Turner and Kate go this night? Again, what was so different about this night? Also, if this is true and this intruder had been watching the McCann’s then the intruder knew this group broke their habits of what they had been doing and this would be more of a risk for them to take Maddy that night.

JMHO

[Jayelles]

These are questions that concern me about this whole case:

There are 3 children in the room and the oldest was taken. I would think she would be more of a risk then one of the younger ones. Maddy would more than likely attract public attention by crying for her Mommy or Daddy but the younger ones would not know what was really going on if someone took them.

There was a discussion about this on one of the documentaries (or it was a radio programme). Madeleine was toilet trained - the twins were in nappies. That might have made her more attractive to a paedophile or to a opportunist who was unprepared for a baby in nappies. The twins OTOH would have been more appealing to child traffickers according to the people on this programme.

I have to say that the famous "they took her" does seem odd. What made them so sure that Maddy didn't leave the apartment and so sure that she was taken?

We don't know that this was her first words. There are conflicting reports about this. However, as I said above, some dialects in the UK say "they" instead of "he/she/someone". e.g. "Who was last out - because THEY left the door unlocked". "they" doesn't necessarily mean plural in the UK and is often used in reference to a single person of unknown gender.

I just don't think this is a crucial piece of evidence.

Did the security guards indeed tell the McCann’s and their friends that robberies were occurring where they were staying at?

No idea but what I will say is that hotels are unlikely to tell you about robberies - bad for their image. The holiday destinations where we've gone to which were most unsafe were Mainland Spain and Tenerife. There were 4 break-ins at our apartments in Tenerife and we had our video camera stolen on the bus. There were gypsies in the street and I just felt really unsafe. In Spain there were pickpockets who came into the complex and stole purses and wallets from guests who were relaxing by the pool - also someone got mugged just outside the hotel one evening. We never went back to either of these destinations. We go to Majorca which is very safe. Portugal also had a reputation for being safe. We have several friends who never went anywhere else. If anyone is likely to tell you about local crime, it's the holiday reps (who are not employees of the hotels).

If the McCann’s and their friends were dinning out every night and leaving the kids alone why pick that night? What was different about that night that an intruder would pick that night instead of the earlier nights when the children were left alone? That leads me to the doctor that stayed with his daughter because she was sick so the intruder would then have to worry about when he was coming out of his apartment before "they" took Maddy.

I understand that the McCanns didn't dine in the Tapas Bar every night. I can't remember the specific details, but the children dined with them on at least one of the evenings.

You could ask the same question about a burglary - why does any cirminal choose a particular time to strike? I'm sure opportunity plays a big part.

IF (and I do say IF this is true) all the other nights that they went out to dine and the women did not go to check on their children why did Turner and Kate go this night? Again, what was so different about this night? Also, if this is true and this intruder had been watching the McCann’s then the intruder knew this group broke their habits of what they had been doing and this would be more of a risk for them to take Maddy that night.

JMHO

Again, we don't know that this is the case. The only people who know the answer to this for sure are the McCanns and their friends and they are bound to silence. What I will say is that my husband and I always took turns when the kids were small - turns at getting up during the night, turns at getting up in the morning. If the fathers had been playing tennis late that afternoon leaving the wives to bath and jammy the kids, maybe the agreement was that they would check on the kis and let the wives have a break in the evening?

My husband and I never had a particular pattern - we just tried to keep a balance. It worked fairly well.

Also - this was the groups' second last night. Departure times vary on these holidays with buses coming morning, noon and night to collect groups of holidaymakers and take them back to the airport. Sometimes you get 7 nights at the hotel, sometimes it works out at only 6 - it depends on the flight times. Maybe the abductor knew that the McCanns might be the following day or night and knew that this might be the last opportunity. Some people spend their last night packing.

[Results]

There was a discussion about this on one of the documentaries (or it was a radio programme). Madeleine was toilet trained - the twins were in nappies. That might have made her more attractive to a paedophile or to a opportunist who was unprepared for a baby in nappies. The twins OTOH would have been more appealing to child traffickers according to the people on this programme.



We don't know that this was her first words. There are conflicting reports about this. However, as I said above, some dialects in the UK say "they" instead of "he/she/someone". e.g. "Who was last out - because THEY left the door unlocked". "they" doesn't necessarily mean plural in the UK and is often used in reference to a single person of unknown gender.

I just don't think this is a crucial piece of evidence.



No idea but what I will say is that hotels are unlikely to tell you about robberies - bad for their image. The holiday destinations where we've gone to which were most unsafe were Mainland Spain and Tenerife. There were 4 break-ins at our apartments in Tenerife and we had our video camera stolen on the bus. There were gypsies in the street and I just felt really unsafe. In Spain there were pickpockets who came into the complex and stole purses and wallets from guests who were relaxing by the pool - also someone got mugged just outside the hotel one evening. We never went back to either of these destinations. We go to Majorca which is very safe. Portugal also had a reputation for being safe. We have several friends who never went anywhere else. If anyone is likely to tell you about local crime, it's the holiday reps (who are not employees of the hotels).



I understand that the McCanns didn't dine in the Tapas Bar every night. I can't remember the specific details, but the children dined with them on at least one of the evenings.

You could ask the same question about a burglary - why does any cirminal choose a particular time to strike? I'm sure opportunity plays a big part.



Again, we don't know that this is the case. The only people who know the answer to this for sure are the McCanns and their friends and they are bound to silence. What I will say is that my husband and I always took turns when the kids were small - turns at getting up during the night, turns at getting up in the morning. If the fathers had been playing tennis late that afternoon leaving the wives to bath and jammy the kids, maybe the agreement was that they would check on the kis and let the wives have a break in the evening?

My husband and I never had a particular pattern - we just tried to keep a balance. It worked fairly well.

Also - this was the groups' second last night. Departure times vary on these holidays with buses coming morning, noon and night to collect groups of holidaymakers and take them back to the airport. Sometimes you get 7 nights at the hotel, sometimes it works out at only 6 - it depends on the flight times. Maybe the abductor knew that the McCanns might be the following day or night and knew that this might be the last opportunity. Some people spend their last night packing.

How would the abductors know when they were leaving? If they knew that then it had to be someone connected where they were staying to obtain this information.

[Seashell]

Jayelles, those children would have been removed by the social services if this had happened in UK, i wont excuse the mother and fathers NEGLIGENCE in leaving them alone with no NANNY or BABYSITTER as the hotel had this option.
The mother was too quick in screaming that maddie had been taken, i am convinced that there is definitelly something amiss in this matter.
Praia da luz is sick and tired of it all, the priest himself has admitted that he was fooled by the parents, why is this i ask myself?
people want to get back to their daily lives the people of this town have said that at first their sympathies were for the parents but they now suspect the parents their sorrow now is for little MADDIE and not the parents.

[Babootje]

Jayelles, those children would have been removed by the social services if this had happened in UK, i wont excuse the mother and fathers NEGLIGENCE in leaving them alone with no NANNY or BABYSITTER as the hotel had this option.
The mother was too quick in screaming that maddie had been taken, i am convinced that there is definitelly something amiss in this matter.
Praia da luz is sick and tired of it all, the priest himself has admitted that he was fooled by the parents, why is this i ask myself?
people want to get back to their daily lives the people of this town have said that at first their sympathies were for the parents but they now suspect the parents their sorrow now is for little MADDIE and not the parents.

I agree with you Seashell. Jayelles talks about dialect but between "They've taken her" or "she's gone" is too much difference I think.
Furthermore - in my opnion - the McCanns are too busy to clear themselves. In the new's in interviews on TV they repeatedly statet "the children were save, they were well taken care of etc." Well in fact, they weren't, otherwise it wouldn't have happened, would it?
By repeatedly leaving the children alone (every night so it is said) they themselves created a situation for an abductor to strike.
What the reconstruction prooved is that if there were as many regulair checks as the Tapas Nine stated, plus the people wandering by in that area (of which there is TV footage), there was no possibility for an abductor to take Madeleine unseen.
The Tapas Nine as a whole have a motive to lie about the timeframe's; there were more of them that left their children alone.
There was a real possibillity they would have been charged with neglect. Off course they do not believe the McCanns harmed Maddie themselves. So to avoid further damage I believe, they (the group) determined their strategy and sticked to that.
If they did so, they frustrated the investigation because suspicion rose against the McCanns, who by the way did not wanted to cooperate with the PJ. Unacceptable in my opinion, your first aim has to be to find your child irrespective of what happens to you.

The other possibillity is off course the evening went as they said. There were regular checks and so on. Then the reconstruction prooved that it was fairly impossible voor an abductor to strike. In fact, it is very improbable that an abductor would, because of the high risk of being catched. (There are so many children that could have been taken without taking that risk).
Then there is the blood of Maddie found in the appartment. The blood (invisible for the eye for the appartment had been cleaned) was found under a tile after a snifferdog pointed out the place.
The blood containes traces resembling Maddie's but was too contiminated to be conclusive in DNA testing. So recently more of the material found is send to the FSS to perform more testing. (This was in all the newspapers).
The amount of the blood found in the appartment pointed that a lot of blood was lost (like an excessive nosebleed or big wound).
Asking the McCanns they stated they could not remember Maddie harmed herself. (That came from my Portuguese source).

So I think for the PJ there is a lot to ask. The interrogations are delayed untill after christmas. May be then the results of the last testing may also be there.
Now for what I heard the PJ has a lot to do examining a big pile of telephone records.

[Jayelles]

How would the abductors know when they were leaving? If they knew that then it had to be someone connected where they were staying to obtain this information.

That's certainly one possibility. Or maybe the apartments had a known "changeover" date. Some holiday companies only offer 7 or 14 night stays. Other also offer 10 and/or 11 nights too. I don't know about the Warner complex. It has to fit in with the flights and some resorts have fewer flights to them than others.

I just don't know the answer to this.

[Jayelles]

Jayelles, those children would have been removed by the social services if this had happened in UK, i wont excuse the mother and fathers NEGLIGENCE in leaving them alone with no NANNY or BABYSITTER as the hotel had this option.
The mother was too quick in screaming that maddie had been taken, i am convinced that there is definitelly something amiss in this matter.
Praia da luz is sick and tired of it all, the priest himself has admitted that he was fooled by the parents, why is this i ask myself?
people want to get back to their daily lives the people of this town have said that at first their sympathies were for the parents but they now suspect the parents their sorrow now is for little MADDIE and not the parents.

That they left their children is an entirely separate matter and debate - it doesn't mean they killed her and disposed of her body.

For your information, they would NOT have lost their children if this had happened in the UK because they didn't break the law - strange though that might seem. There isn't a law here which states that young children cannot be left alone in a house. This has been discussed and there's an interesting article written by a professor of Law on the matter in connection to the McCann case. I am saying that I think this is right BTW.

There was a tabloid story which said the Priest said he was fooled by the parents but we don't know that this is factual. Indeed, I was very surprised at any man of the cloth making such a statement to the tabloid press. It came from the same sources who claimed that Gerry wasn't Madeleine's father.

I am really not interested in debating tabloid speculation/misinformation as though it were case facts.

[Jayelles]

Just for the record, There are conflicting reports about Kate's first words with other witneses (namely the people whom Kate was actually shouting to) being adamant that her first words to them were "Madeleine's gone, Madeleine's gone".

[Seashell]

That they left their children is an entirely separate matter and debate -
Its is an important matter as it is part of these parents NEGLICENCE leaving those children ALONE and in no ways excuses their behaviour, if someone adult had been looking after those chlidren in that apartment then we wouldnt be having this DISCUSSION right now...

For your information, they would NOT have lost their children if this had happened in the UK because they didn't break the law - strange though that might seem. There isn't a law here which states that young children cannot be left alone in a house.
FYI i am an ex chiildminder and i used to take care of children that were left alone with their older brothers or sisters until social sevices would call the parents attention saying that no children under age should be left alone with under age sisters or brothers, so you are telling me there is a law that allows for this to happen, may i ask you as of when there is a law that says under age children can be left alone at home or on holidays?
any RESPONSIBLE parent would never ever have left their children like the Mccanns did and no i do not consider this as am unimportant part of the investigation seeing as due to their NEGLICENCE all this drama has taken place and with the sorry "abduction" of an innocent child.
I speak from experience and have a track record for my work.

There was a tabloid story which said the Priest said he was fooled by the parents but we don't know that this is factual. Indeed, I was very surprised at any man of the cloth making such a statement to the tabloid press. It came from the same sources who claimed that Gerry wasn't Madeleine's father.

I am really not interested in debating tabloid speculation/misinformation as though it were case facts.

Its your choice to not read the tabloids and neither am i interested in discussing wether Gerry was father to maddy.

[Seashell]

I agree with you Seashell. Jayelles talks about dialect but between "They've taken her" or "she's gone" is too much difference I think.
Furthermore - in my opnion - the McCanns are too busy to clear themselves. In the new's in interviews on TV they repeatedly statet "the children were save, they were well taken care of etc." Well in fact, they weren't, otherwise it wouldn't have happened, would it?
By repeatedly leaving the children alone (every night so it is said) they themselves created a situation for an abductor to strike.
What the reconstruction prooved is that if there were as many regulair checks as the Tapas Nine stated, plus the people wandering by in that area (of which there is TV footage), there was no possibility for an abductor to take Madeleine unseen.
The Tapas Nine as a whole have a motive to lie about the timeframe's; there were more of them that left their children alone.
There was a real possibillity they would have been charged with neglect. Off course they do not believe the McCanns harmed Maddie themselves. So to avoid further damage I believe, they (the group) determined their strategy and sticked to that.
If they did so, they frustrated the investigation because suspicion rose against the McCanns, who by the way did not wanted to cooperate with the PJ. Unacceptable in my opinion, your first aim has to be to find your child irrespective of what happens to you.

The other possibillity is off course the evening went as they said. There were regular checks and so on. Then the reconstruction prooved that it was fairly impossible voor an abductor to strike. In fact, it is very improbable that an abductor would, because of the high risk of being catched. (There are so many children that could have been taken without taking that risk).
Then there is the blood of Maddie found in the appartment. The blood (invisible for the eye for the appartment had been cleaned) was found under a tile after a snifferdog pointed out the place.
The blood containes traces resembling Maddie's but was too contiminated to be conclusive in DNA testing. So recently more of the material found is send to the FSS to perform more testing. (This was in all the newspapers).
The amount of the blood found in the appartment pointed that a lot of blood was lost (like an excessive nosebleed or big wound).
Asking the McCanns they stated they could not remember Maddie harmed herself. (That came from my Portuguese source).

So I think for the PJ there is a lot to ask. The interrogations are delayed untill after christmas. May be then the results of the last testing may also be there.
Now for what I heard the PJ has a lot to do examining a big pile of telephone records.

Agreed.

Maddy :rose:

[Jayelles]

Its is an important matter as it is part of these parents NEGLICENCE leaving those children ALONE and in no ways excuses their behaviour, if someone adult had been looking after those chlidren in that apartment then we wouldnt be having this DISCUSSION right now...


FYI i am an ex chiildminder and i used to take care of children that were left alone with their older brothers or sisters until social sevices would call the parents attention saying that no children under age should be left alone with under age sisters or brothers, so you are telling me there is a law that allows for this to happen, may i ask you as of when there is a law that says under age children can be left alone at home or on holidays?
any RESPONSIBLE parent would never ever have left their children like the Mccanns did and no i do not consider this as am unimportant part of the investigation seeing as due to their NEGLICENCE all this drama has taken place and with the sorry "abduction" of an innocent child.
I speak from experience and have a track record for my work.



Its your choice to not read the tabloids and neither am i interested in discussing wether Gerry was father to maddy.


Do you work as a childminder in the UK?

Here is a website which explains the law in the UK:-

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/HelpAndAdvice/Parentsandcarers/HomeAlone/homealone_wda35965.html

You should read the article by the Professor of Law. It's on the Madeleine section of The Times website (the Times is a highly credible newspaper). I enjoyed reading it because it made a refreshing change from tabloid speculation and gossip.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1762734.ece

You say you're not interested in Gerry's paternity yet the same tabloids are generating the stories about Gerry's paternity and the priest's alleged gossip about the McCanns - how do you select which stories to believe? For me it's simple - I disregard them all.

I understand that you're upset about the McCann kids being left unattended for half an hour at time whilst their parents ate in the nearby restaurant but this really is a separate issue from that of her being abducted and possibly sexually abused or murdered. Today I did some Christmas shopping in town and there was a little girl - under school age who was "looking" at pretty things on the shelves of the shops. Her mother was a few aisles away. Was that mother neglecting her daughter? The little girl didn't come to any harm - in the same way as the McCann twins and the children of the other parents at the Tapas Bar but if she'd been snatched and murdered - whose fault would it be? The abductor/murderer's or the mother's? Jamie Bulger (2) was snatched and murdered whilst his mother shopped nearby. I've never read a single attack on Denise Bulger.

[Seashell]

Do you work as a childminder in the UK?

Here is a website which explains the law in the UK:-

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/HelpAndAdvice/Parentsandcarers/HomeAlone/homealone_wda35965.html

You should read the article by the Professor of Law. It's on the Madeleine section of The Times website (the Times is a highly credible newspaper). I enjoyed reading it because it made a refreshing change from tabloid speculation and gossip.
lol maybe you should take time to read my answer as i do mention i am an ex childminder and as i know most of the children i looked after were never ever allowed to stay at home alone unsuperivsed :)
your link:

Leaving children at home alone
What the law says

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.

How do you decide if you can safely leave a child alone?

There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include:
the age of the child
the child's level of maturity and understanding
the place where child will be left
how long the child will be left alone, and how often
whether or not there are any other children alone with the child.
the age of the child:
under 3 at the time
childs level of maturity:
a mature under 3 year old looking after her baby twin brother and sister.

My own research:
What age can I leave my child at home on their own?Parents often wonder when it is safe to leave a child unsupervised at home. The law does not specify an age when a child can be left at home alone. However, parents commit an offence if leaving the child at home alone puts him or her at risk.

The Children’s Legal Centre advises that most children under the age of 13 should not be left at home alone. Even a short period of time on their own can be distressing and lonely for a child, most children under 13 years of age would not be able to cope with an emergency.

How long and how often, it speaks for itself, i have nothing more to say and add this one more time:
The parents are NEGLIGENT for leaving 3 under 3 year old children in a holiday apartment, it takes a few minutes for a fire to start as well as it could take anyone a few seconds to walk in and abduct a child such as maddy.
I suppose as parent we all see our responsibilities in a different manner and yet i would never ever have left my babies alone not in a million years!!

You say you're not interested in Gerry's paternity yet the same tabloids are generating the stories about Gerry's paternity
jayelle, remember it was you who broached the subject about the tabloids comments about the childs father :)

and the priest's alleged gossip about the McCanns - how do you select which stories to believe? For me it's simple - I disregard them all.
For someone who doesnt read the tabloids you sure know a lot more than me,
I believe the catholic priest :)
am not going to post links as time will tell when this whole episode is at last solved.

I understand that you're upset about the McCann kids being left unattended for half an hour at time whilst their parents ate in the nearby restaurant but this really is a separate issue from that of her being abducted and possibly sexually abused or murdered. Today I did some Christmas shopping in town and there was a little girl - under school age who was "looking" at pretty things on the shelves of the shops. Her mother was a few aisles away. Was that mother neglecting her daughter? The little girl didn't come to any harm - in the same way as the McCann twins and the children of the other parents at the Tapas Bar but if she'd been snatched and murdered - whose fault would it be? The abductor/murderer's or the mother's? Jamie Bulger (2) was snatched and murdered whilst his mother shopped nearby. I've never read a single attack on Denise Bulger.
tis not a separate issue here as i still stand by what i wrote earlier on, they are guilty of NEGLIGENCE to leave 3 under 3 year old children alone in a holiday apartment and i will never ever change my attitude on their NEGLIGENCE.
As for Jamie Bulger, its one thing for a child to dissapear while the mother was out shopping and quiet another that a parent leaves her children unsupervised in an apartment for tom dick and harry to walk in and snatch the child, comparisons are hatefull and in this case its got nothing to do with what has happened to little Denise Bulger.

[Seashell]

http://www.childrenslegalcentre.com/Legal+Advice/Child+law/Homealone/HowdoIdecidewhethermychildcansafelybeleftathomealo ne.htm

[Babootje]

lol maybe you should take time to read my answer as i do mention i am an ex childminder and as i know most of the children i looked after were never ever allowed to stay at home alone unsuperivsed :)
your link:

Leaving children at home alone
What the law says

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.

How do you decide if you can safely leave a child alone?

There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include:
the age of the child
the child's level of maturity and understanding
the place where child will be left
how long the child will be left alone, and how often
whether or not there are any other children alone with the child.
the age of the child:
under 3 at the time
childs level of maturity:
a mature under 3 year old looking after her baby twin brother and sister.

My own research:
What age can I leave my child at home on their own?Parents often wonder when it is safe to leave a child unsupervised at home. The law does not specify an age when a child can be left at home alone. However, parents commit an offence if leaving the child at home alone puts him or her at risk.

The Children’s Legal Centre advises that most children under the age of 13 should not be left at home alone. Even a short period of time on their own can be distressing and lonely for a child, most children under 13 years of age would not be able to cope with an emergency.

How long and how often, it speaks for itself, i have nothing more to say and add this one more time:
The parents are NEGLIGENT for leaving 3 under 3 year old children in a holiday apartment, it takes a few minutes for a fire to start as well as it could take anyone a few seconds to walk in and abduct a child such as maddy.
I suppose as parent we all see our responsibilities in a different manner and yet i would never ever have left my babies alone not in a million years!!


jayelle, remember it was you who broached the subject about the tabloids comments about the childs father :)


For someone who doesnt read the tabloids you sure know a lot more than me,
I believe the catholic priest :)
am not going to post links as time will tell when this whole episode is at last solved.


tis not a separate issue here as i still stand by what i wrote earlier on, they are guilty of NEGLIGENCE to leave 3 under 3 year old children alone in a holiday apartment and i will never ever change my attitude on their NEGLIGENCE.
As for Jamie Bulger, its one thing for a child to dissapear while the mother was out shopping and quiet another that a parent leaves her children unsupervised in an apartment for tom dick and harry to walk in and snatch the child, comparisons are hatefull and in this case its got nothing to do with what has happened to little Denise Bulger.

Agreed
I can not understand why they left their kids alone, not one night, but more. And I am not a very agitated mother.
But I am not therewith implicating that they did harm Maddie. But I am sick of the fact that they (the McCanns) are still saying: We did all we could, they were save, they were well cared. etc. WHILE THEY WEREN'T.
Why don't they admit that.
I can imagine that you did not think this would happen. But SAY SO. Then I can have respect.

[Babootje]

More and more doubts are rising about the work of Metodo 3 the detective agency hired by the McCanns to find Madeleine:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1297851,00.html

[Jayelles]

Agreed
I can not understand why they left their kids alone, not one night, but more. And I am not a very agitated mother.
But I am not therewith implicating that they did harm Maddie. But I am sick of the fact that they (the McCanns) are still saying: We did all we could, they were save, they were well cared. etc. WHILE THEY WEREN'T.
Why don't they admit that.

The reason why I feeel disinclined to keep debating this is because I reserve my anger and contempt for the person who took Madeleine and who has possibly harmed her. Continually beating the parents is IMO a distraction away from the person who committed the real crime here. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that McCanns are anything other than loving parents who made a bad judgement and who are paying the highest price for it. I will not be an apologist for the behaviour of the child abductor/molester/killer on the grounds that her parents enabled him/her to commit this crime. We are talking about a deliberate crime committed by an evil person. It it hadn't been Madeleine, it would have been some other child - maybe Madeleine wasn't the first and maybe she won't be the last but one thing is for sure, her abductor will be LOVING all the focus on her parents because as long as people focus on the McCanns, they won't be looking for him.


I can imagine that you did not think this would happen. But SAY SO. Then I can have respect.

Take it as read that I won't be beating up these parents to gain yours or anyone else's respect. If you want to disrespect me for that - I'll live with it.

[Jayelles]

lol maybe you should take time to read my answer as i do mention i am an ex childminder and as i know most of the children i looked after were never ever allowed to stay at home alone unsuperivsed :)
your link:

Leaving children at home alone
What the law says

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.

How do you decide if you can safely leave a child alone?

There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include:
the age of the child
the child's level of maturity and understanding
the place where child will be left
how long the child will be left alone, and how often
whether or not there are any other children alone with the child.
the age of the child:
under 3 at the time
childs level of maturity:
a mature under 3 year old looking after her baby twin brother and sister.


How does it relate the above to children who are asleep in their beds?

My own research:
What age can I leave my child at home on their own?Parents often wonder when it is safe to leave a child unsupervised at home. The law does not specify an age when a child can be left at home alone. However, parents commit an offence if leaving the child at home alone puts him or her at risk.

The Children’s Legal Centre advises that most children under the age of 13 should not be left at home alone. Even a short period of time on their own can be distressing and lonely for a child, most children under 13 years of age would not be able to cope with an emergency.

How long and how often, it speaks for itself, i have nothing more to say and add this one more time:
The parents are NEGLIGENT for leaving 3 under 3 year old children in a holiday apartment, it takes a few minutes for a fire to start as well as it could take anyone a few seconds to walk in and abduct a child such as maddy.
I suppose as parent we all see our responsibilities in a different manner and yet i would never ever have left my babies alone not in a million years!!


jayelle, remember it was you who broached the subject about the tabloids comments about the childs father :)


For someone who doesnt read the tabloids you sure know a lot more than me,
I believe the catholic priest :)
am not going to post links as time will tell when this whole episode is at last solved.


tis not a separate issue here as i still stand by what i wrote earlier on, they are guilty of NEGLIGENCE to leave 3 under 3 year old children alone in a holiday apartment and i will never ever change my attitude on their NEGLIGENCE.
As for Jamie Bulger, its one thing for a child to dissapear while the mother was out shopping and quiet another that a parent leaves her children unsupervised in an apartment for tom dick and harry to walk in and snatch the child, comparisons are hatefull and in this case its got nothing to do with what has happened to little Denise Bulger.


I half prepared a detailed answer to this post but then I read one sentence and decided not to waste my time:-

For someone who doesnt read the tabloids you sure know a lot more than me, I believe the catholic priest :) am not going to post links as time will tell when this whole episode is at last solved.


Surely you meant to say "I believe the tabloids" - since we only have the tabloids' account of what the priest said?

This is my last post to you Seashell. I'm not interested in tabloid gossip - only facts.

[Seashell]

as you please jayelles, dont answer me but am entitled to answer you seeing as this is a discussion board? am sure that the news i get here on national news is sufficient for me to believe :)
Merry xmas and God bless :)

[Babootje]

Take it as read that I won't be beating up these parents to gain yours or anyone else's respect. If you want to disrespect me for that - I'll live with it.

Ha ha, I did not point to you of course Jayelles. I ment the McCanns.
They repeatedly are saying (still are), they are completely innocent, that the children were safe, well taken care of etc.
It would suit them better to show they are sorry for their bad judgement.
Then I would have more respect for them (The McCanns). No I think they are selfish, by trying to clean up their own acts, while every attention has to go to Madeleine.

[Results]

Ha ha, I did not point to you of course Jayelles. I ment the McCanns.
They repeatedly are saying (still are), they are completely innocent, that the children were safe, well taken care of etc.
It would suit them better to show they are sorry for their bad judgement.
Then I would have more respect for them (The McCanns). No I think they are selfish, by trying to clean up their own acts, while every attention has to go to Madeleine.

I think Jay missed that you were talking about the McCanns. However, I'm not Jay so I shouldn't be answering for her but from her response to you IMO I think she read it as you were talking to her. For the record I don't know who is responsible for this poor little girl demise. Is she still alive or is she deceased? This case is bizare IMO. There is something about the McCanns that just doesn't sit right with me. I can't put my finger on it yet but I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is.

Just a note for all posters here this case is an emotional case because it is about a innnocent little girl. Emotions can run high and I haven't seen disrespect towards anyone but I do see debating this case and folks that is what we sign up to do when we post with each other in our community. Jay really feels that the parents aren't guilty and I respect that but I have to say at this point I don't know 100% if they are or not. Jay what makes such a strong case in your eyes that they are completely innocent? I don't want you to disrespect the McCanns but I would like for you to tell me if you can why are they so innocent. One of the main reasons that bothers me that I can't wrap my thought around is the McCanns did not just leave a 3 year old alone they left 2 toddlers in a bed and not a crib according to the pictures of the beds in that room where Maddy vanished. What made the McCanns so comfortable to leave such small children alone? Those young children if they woke up 5 minutes after the last check it only takes minutes for an accidental death to occur because of the fact they don't know any better not to do things such as falling in the toilet head first and can't get out and drown right there in the toilet, fall out the bed and break a bone, put a object in an electrical outlet. What made them so sure that those kids would not get out of their beds? What was it that made them not concerned? That doesn't add up to me but it doesn't make them guilty but it does not seem practical them being doctors with more wisdom of what can go wrong. JMHO

[Seashell]

Results, jayelles decided to have nothing more to say to me with regards to this abominable case of parents neglect, i calls it as i sees it and wont budge, i also cant pin point my suspicions towards the parents but i guess until someone somewhere cracks we will be left to speculating as well as some news here in the country where i live informed.

[Results]

Results, jayelles decided to have nothing more to say to me with regards to this abominable case of parents neglect, i calls it as i sees it and wont budge, i also cant pin point my suspicions towards the parents but i guess until someone somewhere cracks we will be left to speculating as well as some news here in the country where i live informed.

Hey Seashell,

ITA with you there is something about the parents but I don't know what it is either. I do know that is not only that they are both very educated to not leave the kids alone. I also do not like how they set up a company with the donations...who does that when their child is missing? Is there ever a case where a parent besides them have done that? JMHO

[Seashell]

Hey Seashell,
I also do not like how they set up a company with the donations...who does that when their child is missing? Is there ever a case where a parent besides them have done that? JMHO

Well pointed out, i also wrote on here on my thread about the money involved, have you seen the t-shirts, wrist bands etc...... to sell on internet and how some of the money was used to pay the Mccanns mortgage? even if that money was returned to the funds, its too late they have damaged their public image in doing so.
I was a child minder many years ago in the UK i was approached by the social workers many times to look after kids who would be at home for a few hours after school alone at home and social services warned the parents that kids from a certain age couldnt be left alone as anything could happen during those few hours.
Even if the Mccanns twins and Maddy were asleep, it isnt safe to leave them alone and check on them supposedly every half hour :no: i mean cmon wake up people! who else is left to protect their kids unless its their parents? as well as not using the hotels babysitting facilities!?
a responsible parent knows better than to do this, how many times have we seen on the news how children who were left alone while their mum went out for a while at night, were burnt to death in a house fire? and god awfull tragedies all over the world and not only in UK?
I remember yelling these words when i saw the news here:
WHY WERE THEY LEFT ALONE?!! specially on holiday?
everyone told me, poor parents they are paying for their mistake etc...
at first my sympathy was for them but as the days went by and the more i knew about them as well as how they opened a charity for Maddy, sounded too business minded and not in my books the right manner to go about it!
here is a find Maddy link:
i wouldnt spend a single penny/euro..
http://store.findmadeleine.com/

[Babootje]

Jay really feels that the parents aren't guilty and I respect that but I have to say at this point I don't know 100% if they are or not. Jay what makes such a strong case in your eyes that they are completely innocent? I don't want you to disrespect the McCanns but I would like for you to tell me if you can why are they so innocent. One of the main reasons that bothers me that I can't wrap my thought around is the McCanns did not just leave a 3 year old alone they left 2 toddlers in a bed and not a crib according to the pictures of the beds in that room where Maddy vanished. What made the McCanns so comfortable to leave such small children alone? JMHO

I agree with you Results. It is not that I WANT the McCanns guilty of anything, but IMO when **** happens then you could pull the hair out of your head out of regret.
So I cannot understand why the McCanns still say they're COMPLETELY innocent. That the children were perfectly safe, and so on and so on. They weren't weren't they? That is what is bothering me.
When you have made some bad judgement than just say so.

Now it is on the news that the PJ (Policia Juardicia) is searching for a blue tennisbag, that would belong to Gerry. (I have heard that news before). The bag is big enough to could have carry a small child. It was never been seen after the disappearance of Maddie. The McCanns denie to have ever possesed such a bag. www.dailymail.co.uk

[Babootje]

http://store.findmadeleine.com/

DREADFULL!!!

[Results]

I agree with you Results. It is not that I WANT the McCanns guilty of anything, but IMO when **** happens then you could pull the hair out of your head out of regret.
So I cannot understand why the McCanns still say they're COMPLETELY innocent. That the children were perfectly safe, and so on and so on. They weren't weren't they? That is what is bothering me.
When you have made some bad judgement than just say so.

Now it is on the news that the PJ (Policia Juardicia) is searching for a blue tennisbag, that would belong to Gerry. (I have heard that news before). The bag is big enough to could have carry a small child. It was never been seen after the disappearance of Maddie. The McCanns denie to have ever possesed such a bag. www.dailymail.co.uk

Is this bag issue true? Jay wrote a correcting the media on it and she has some real good points about why deny a bag if they can prove you have one? I hope her parents are innocent that way there maybe a chance she is alive but when talking to T.Dream when the story went so big and she could be identified by a mark Maddy then would be a liability and that has always been my concern. I hope and pray she is alive. jmho

[Results]

This is to Jayelle! (I hope I spelt your name right if I didn't sorry) I asked you in another post what makes you so sure they are 100% innocent but I wanted to ask you another question. This Maddie online store why would they give you a free poster if you buy a braclet? I have never heard of that. You would want to pass out posters to keep Maddie's case alive and to remind people please look out for this baby if you see her. IMO this does not make them look good. TIA JMHO

[Seashell]

Results:
a little boy by the name of Jeremi Vargas also was abducted more or less same time as maddy in Gran canaria canary islands.
It is also part of spain and do you know that the parents were offered money and they declined the offer? they are humble people who arent Doctors nor have the kind of salaries that the parents of Maddy have.
This whole money making scam makes my stomach turn, even a multi millionaire is helping the Mccanns, at the end of the day the focus of this precious child is being misled by consumism.
JMHO.

[Jayelles]

This is to Jayelle! (I hope I spelt your name right if I didn't sorry) I asked you in another post what makes you so sure they are 100% innocent but I wanted to ask you another question. This Maddie online store why would they give you a free poster if you buy a braclet? I have never heard of that. You would want to pass out posters to keep Maddie's case alive and to remind people please look out for this baby if you see her. IMO this does not make them look good. TIA JMHO


I'll respond to the poster question first. I'm not sure what's odd about giving away posters with the bracelets. If buying a bracelet were the ONLY way to get a Madeleine poster then I'd agree with you that it would be odd. However, all the posters are free downloads here:-

http://findmadeleine.com/campaign/

Anyone can either print one off on ordinary paper or download the file onto USB/floppy and take it to a stationers and pay to have it printed on strong, glossy poster paper. Poster paper is more durable and won't be so quickly destroyed by our awful British weather if positioned outdoors. However, it isn't cheap. I sometimes have posters made and they cost me between £1.50 (approximately $3) and £1.75 each. This is the cost for an A3 sized poster which is a metric size and may not mean much to you but A3 is twice the size of A4 and A4 is just very slightly (millimetres) smaller than the American Letter size of paper.

I would guess that the posters which are given away with the bracelets will be A4 rather than A3 and if the McCanns are having them printed in bulk, it will be considerably cheaper than the unit price I pay for 2/3 posters but I DO think they will be printed on proper heavy duty poster paper which won't disintegrate or fade within days. They can probably give away a poster (to someone whom they KNOW is supporting the campaignthrough buying a bracelet) and still make a reasonable margin of profit on the bracelets for the fund

As I say, if you HAD to buy something from the online shop in order to get a poster, then I'd agree that it would be odd - but that certainly isn't the case.

[Jayelles]

Now the second part of your question - why do I think they are innocent?

Where do I start?......simply because I haven't seen any convincing CREDIBLE evidence which suggests that they are guilty. Before I went into teaching, I was a research assistant for years and part of my job was to collect data and then subject it to a barrage of tests in order to find flaws in it. It's just as important to try and disprove as theory as it is to try and prove it - because that's what your critics will do after your work has been published and if your research assistant has missed some major flaw, it's acutely embarassing! An academic's life's work and reputation can go right up the spout. So I guess it's ingrained in me to question the validity and integrity or a source. In the McCann case, there is very little data but a lot of "information" from unreliable sources which later transpires to be full of flaws.

Basically, IMO, for the McCanns to have murdered Madeleine, it would have to have been premeditated because it seems to be accepted by all involved that they only had a 90 minute window in which to kill Madeleine and then cover it up.

Now if you work on the premise that it was a calculated, premeditated murder, then it could work. However, there would have to be a very strong motive for a premeditated murder and so far, none is evident. So we look at accidental death and coverup. Back to the 90 minutes. We know that one of the friends called in at the apartment at 6.30 and saw Kate preparing the children for bed. He has allegedly reported everything as being normal at that point in time. The McCanns then appeared at the Tapas Bar at 8.00pm to join their friends for dinner. So that accounts for the 90 minutes. There are records at the hotel nursery which confirm that Madeleine was there until tea-time (which debunked later tabloid suggestions that she may have been killed earlier) so there is no doubt that she was alive at that point.

Then bear in mind that the McCanns were not at home but in a holiday apartment in a typical package holiday complex. These apartments have basic provisions. You get 4-6 of each cutlery utensil, 4-6 plates, cups. Maybe 2-3 pots. There isn't usually an oven but you might get a hob with two electric rings and a small microwave oven. The fridge will be about the size of a minibar. The reason being that they want you to eat in their restaurants and most people do. Sometimes your package holiday deal includes breakfast and your evening meal in the restaurant but it sounds as though the McCanns were fully self-catering.

Most importantly, the apartment would not have your typical items which would be necessary to (e.g.) dispose of a body. They supply toilet paper and towels but there wouldn't be supplies of black bin liners, there wouldn't be shovels or any digging implements at all (unless you used a dinner spoon!).

So back to the accidental death - we have an horrific accident and Madeleine winds up fatally injured - what is the first reaction? One would presume horror, shock, disbelief. Two parents who are medics might try to revive/rescusitate her - how long does this period last for? The clock is ticking away. Supposing they try to rescucitate her for 15-20 minutes which I think would be about the maximum length of time a medical team would work on a patient that they have no emotional ties to. It doesn't work. They have 75 minutes left PRESUMING that this horrible accident occurred IMMEDIATELY on the departure of their friend who witnessed a normal family scene at 6.30pm. Less if it occurred later. Now we have panic setting in - they are in a foreign land, in a basic holiday accomodation. They've only been there for a few days so presumably only have a cursory knowledge of the surrounding area. Their twins are perhaps still awake and running around (it is only 6.45pm after all). So what do they do? I would imagine there might be some arguing - one parent wanting to call an ambulance, the other arguing - let's dump the body and stage a kidnapping. How long do they take to make this decision? 2 minutes? 10? 30?

Time marches on. The twins need to be settled - how do you have the presence of mind to calmly settle two children in bed when your other precious child is lying dead on the floor - the result of a horrible and unforseen accident?

They have less than a hour to come up with a plan for disposing of their child's body, getting the twins to sleep and getting themselves composed and ready for their evening meal with friends. No-one described them as agitated.

I'm not going to break this down into actions and times but an expert who was interviewed on either the first or second documentary that was shown here about the case said it wasn't possible to do everything they would have HAD to do in the time we know they had available UNLESS it was premediated. He said they simply didn't have what they call "opportunity". Plus, there is no obvious motive for a premeditated murder of their child.

So that's the basis that I am coming from. The parents are innocent unless there is evidence that they did this horrible crime.

[Jayelles]

Enter the media.

The case was surrounded in secrecy from the word go. What we DID hear about came from leaks from the Portuguese police to the portuguese tabloids and these consisted of a whole pile of sensational and contradictory stories.

The first story was that Madeleine had died as a result of a drugs overdose. In fact, it was suggested that she'd died of an overdose of calpol. AT this point, a "sensational" story broke - that a McCann grandparent confirmed that the McCanns gave their children Calpol. Suddenly, the forums were full of this damning evidence - except that 1) Calpol isn't a sedative and 2) you'd be very hard pushed to find any British parent who had NOT given their children Calpol! 3) A child would have to consume a massive amount of Calpol before it would be fatal 4) Death from an overdose of Calpol is long and painful as it causes liver failure - so death doesn't occur within an hour or so but rather within several days.

One tabloid reported that a syringe had been found in the apartment - but wouldn't that be horribly careless? To leave the intrument of death lying around when everything else had been covered up to perfection? This sotry was presumably also false since a used syringe would surely be a smoking gun? It would have Madeleine's DNA on the needle and traces of the fatal substance in the syringe.

Then there was the claim that police had found traces of Madeleine's bodily fluids in a car hired by the McCanns - problem was - the car hadn't been hired until 25 days after Madeleine had gone missing. However, this was quickly countered by experts who stated that this DNA might have come from the twins. So the next (and probably one of the most disgusting stories) came out - the alllegation that Gerry wasn't Madeleine's real father and that the police had tracked down her real father to Birningham and eliminated him from their enquiries! This story was basically used to counter claims that the DNA could be from the twins - because if Gerry wasn't Madeleine's real father then she would have very different DNA to the twins. This story ran for days and a lot of people accepted it as gospel truth - DESPITE the fact that the source had been so terribly wrong on so many previous occasions. There was a very major flaw in the story - namely that we have very strict Data Protection laws here and at the very least, they would have had to go through the court system to gain access to that information. Gerry McCann obviously thought he was Madeleine's father and she had been conceived via IVF so he would know whether he was the father or not. If he THOUGHT he was and it transpired that he wasn't, then the Fertility Clinic had some serious questions to answer. If it was negligence - they'd only have discovered that through careful investigation - which might have involved DNA testing of Gerry McCann. If it was malpractice, then I doubt they'd have been immediately co-operative and would have possibly attempted a coverup - all of which would take time to wade through. The bottom line though is that the Fertility clinic would probably have fought tooth and nail to keep their records private. The story died a death and despite this tabloids "claims of fact" that this "real father" had been traced and eliminated, it would appear to have been a complete (and possibly deliberate) fabrication.

But that was just one little sideshow. We had the whole saga of the alleged body fluids found in a car they hired 25 days after Madeleine went missing suggesting that her body had been hidden for that period and then moved under the full glare of the media. That is 25 days in temperatures of up to 90 degrees. An expert said that you'd have been able to smell the body at 100 yards. It seemed a ridiculous theory and was certainly one which was treated with contempt by most thinking people. So then they suggested that they suspected that the McCanns had stored her body in the fridge! This story lasted as long as it took for someone to point out that the fridge was little more than a minibar and that the freezer part of it was only large enough to store a tray of icecubes. So then the next story emerged - well they got the use of someone's freezer. This scenario would have necessitated the McCanns going around knocking on doors and asking local strangers if they could store a body in their freezer - who is going to agree to that? It was massively risky. Even if they were offered a huge sum of money to do so - the police might conduct a thorough search and then how would they explain the body in the freezer nd it would only take one person to lift the telephone and report the McCanns to the police.

These stories went on and on but .... there were problems with each and every one of them. It seemed to me that the "source close to the Portuguese police" was desperately trying to find some theory which would work.

Then they claimed they'd found Madeleine's blood in the apartment - but a spokesman from the Birmingham lab who did the testing said that the sample that was supposedly Madeleine's blood was so degraded that they couldn't even tell if it was blood - let alone if it was Madeleine's. Apart from anything, people don't usually bleed from an overdose of sedative! Plus, Madeleine was known to be in the flat so her blood could have been there quite innocently. Little children fall over all the time. Little children run around in their bare feet on holiday - a small cut to the sole of a foot would easily explain a tiny drop of blood.

Then there was the sniffer dogs and the "scent of death". But these dogs aren't foolproof - if they were, I might have sat up at this. A dog alerting isn't evidence on its own. They do have false alerts. They are also not person specific. A dog would alert to ANY blood or ANY "scent of death" and they would need to have a body to prove whose. The sniffer dog "evidence" just added more dirt to the tabloid stories. I found out that the "scent of death" is a chemical called cadaver... (something I forget its name) but it is also found in urine and in semen. I found police reports which reported dogs commonly false alerting on urine and semen.

But then came the next police theory - that Madeleine had died as a result of a fall down the stairs. So what about the sedative claim? Remember they actually claimed (as fact) that traces of sedative had been found in her bodily fluids in the boot of the hire car. Now they were suggesting that she had died from an accidental fall - presumably she was running around and awake at the time and not sedated?

Then there was the claim that they had gotten hold of Kate's diary and that it contained damning evidence about her state of mind. Except that it later transpired that Kate only started keeping this diary AFTER Madeleine went missing and that she had done so in order to have a permanent record to give to Madeleine when she was older. It was a displacement activity suggested by her sister-in-law and gave Kate something to pour her feelings of love for Madeleine into. It later transpired that Kate had not been asked for the diary (certainly not at the point when the tabloids were claiming to have excerpts from it) so claims that the police had the diary were once again - false.

[Jayelles]

Throughout this, the McCanns were not allowed to speak about the case and they were criticised for this despite the fact that they were threatened with jail if they did.

Now the Portuguese police are working on the theory that whomever took Madeleine, killed her and dumped her body in one of the many large green wheelie bins which were collected the morning AFTER she went missing and taken to a landfill site..... This is certainly a feasible theory and one I'd give credence to......but what about the so called "evidence" of bodily fluids in the car hired by the McCanns 25 days after Madeleine went missing? Do they abandon that so called evidence because it doesn't fit their latest theory? And so it goes on.

All of this is the reason why I take McCann case stories from the tabloids with a huge pinch of salt and in the face of the massive amounts of "proven to be false" information we've had from the tabloids, it pains me to see people accepting the latest rubbish as though this time it's gospel truth. If someone lies to me, I'll be leery about trusting them in future. But if someone lies to me repeatedly, there is no way I'd trust them. I'll be looking for the proof that it's true first. To me, a source is only as reliable as its track record of credibility. I'm afraid that I think that people who continue to accept the anti-McCann stories from sources which are proven to be highly unreliable must WANT them to be true - in the same way as the wife of a serial adulterer keeps accepting his promises to be faithful from now on.

So in summary:-

1) I don't think it's "suspicious" that the McCanns left their children - badly judged - definitely, negligent - arguably, unusual - definitely not.

2) I don't believe they had any motive to deliberately murder their little child on vacation.

3) I don't believe they had the opportunity to accidentally kill her and then cover it up

4) The information we've had about the case has been incorrect/innaccurate seemingly 99% of the time so I simply reject all of it unless it comes from a highly reputable source like the BBC or perhaps the Times. Early in the case, the BBC said that they wouldn't report anything unless it came from an official source and I think it's no coincidence that they've hardly reported anything at all about the case.

I personally don't see the McCanns leaving their children and someone taking one of them from the apartment as one crime. I see them as two separate issues. I accept that one is a consequence of the other but you could really say that about any crime which takes place - "if only this, if only that". I'm not excusing it but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the more serious of the two actions is the kidnapping and possible murder of a small child asleep in her bed. I think it's unproductive and unhelpful to keep bashing the parents for leaving their children. If they deserve to be further punished for that, then the courts will see to it that they are because there is no doubt that they did it.

However there is IMO a MASSIVE amount of doubt that they killed Madeleine and disposed of her body and until such evidence is found to prove beyond all reasonable doubnt that they did, I will support the search for Madeleine and hope that she will be returned alive to her family.

[Jayelles]

Results -I'm really sorry that was so long. This was the shortened version!

What I'd like to add is that because I find the debate about whether they were wrong to leave their children unproductive and unhelpful, I won't respond to any more posts about that. This is not because I am defending the parents but rather because I think it's a totally pointless discussion topic and one which isn't going to help find Madeleine. This is not just my POV with regard to the McCann case - this is a facet of my personality. When there is a crisis, my motto is "OK - what's done is done, now what do we do to fix it?".

I don't think there is any doubt that Madeleine's disappearance came about as a consequence of her abductor having the opportunity to take her. Now For the number one priority for me is to find Madeleine and hopefully also the person who did this.

[Results]

Excellent post and very informative. I do appreciate the time you took to respond to my questions. I'm so glad to hear that they give away free posters because that was bothering me...thank you for the explanation. You have excellent points in your post and I will have to think about the things that you have said. Again, thank you for the time you put into your response to my questions.

[Babootje]

The McCanns then appeared at the Tapas Bar at 8.00pm to join their friends for dinner.

I always heard, the McCanns appeared at the Tapas Bar at 20:30 hrs.

[Babootje]

Excellent and accurate post Jayelles; I cannot figure out how (and can not believe) the McCanns could have harm Maddie also. But there are questions. Why do they not cooperate with the PJ. Because they didn't in the beginning of the investigation (I still do think they lied about the facts that would incriminate them for neglect) cooperate with the police. That did not make things easier.

Hope Maddie WILL BE found.

[Babootje]

What I'd like to add is that because I find the debate about whether they were wrong to leave their children unproductive and unhelpful, I won't respond to any more posts about that. This is not because I am defending the parents but rather because I think it's a totally pointless discussion topic and one which isn't going to help find Madeleine. This is not just my POV with regard to the McCann case - this is a facet of my personality. When there is a crisis, my motto is "OK - what's done is done, now what do we do to fix it?".


You are right with that Jayelles, but the thing with me is, that because the McCanns themselves keep saying "We are totally innocent" and "the children were perfectly safe". I can not simply get over that.
When they would admit "We shouln't have done that" and "We regret it happened" I would react different.
Of course "what is done its done" but they "the McCanns" IMO aren't innocent.

But enough about that then

[Seashell]

I agree Jayelles that indeed you have written an excellent answer on here everyone is entitled to write and explain how they see the case even if i may not agree. :)
What I'd like to add is that because I find the debate about whether they were wrong to leave their children unproductive and unhelpful, I won't respond to any more posts about that. This is not because I am defending the parents but rather because I think it's a totally pointless discussion topic and one which isn't going to help find Madeleine.
Every angle in this case including the children being left alone in a holiday apartment is an important link in this case, every single person, neighbour, witness including the parents.
Thats my opinion and stand by it.

[Babootje]

Found the following interesting discussion topic:
http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=action&action=display&thread=1196705810

There you will find a day-to-day very accurate timeline of the evening May 3 and further.

[Scarrlett]

Good morning,
I wonder what happened to that quirky guy that said he knew that Madeleine was alive and he would have her home by Xmas!!!
I have tried to find out more about these people and find that they have moved into new offices.They sure fell into it when they got hired by the Mccanns.
To look at the pictures of these people makes me think;"you have got to be KIDDING me".I saw this guy on 48 hours and this is really all I have to go on.Could someone offer up info on this agency and their track record?

About the dogs....They were not newbies."Theses guys" are the best in your neck of the woods!The training is intense and they do not "hit" on urine, blood, etc. of others when given a specifiate scent to track.They have no motive or stake in the crime.They can NOT be swayed by money or public opinion.With all the fiasco in this investigation they are, IMHO,the only ones to be believed.If they Hit on a corpse,take it to the bank.True,they are just an investigative tool but I trust them over that agencey sitting in nice new offices thanks to Madeleines`money.Shame on them!!

[Jayelles]

Good morning,
I wonder what happened to that quirky guy that said he knew that Madeleine was alive and he would have her home by Xmas!!!
I have tried to find out more about these people and find that they have moved into new offices.They sure fell into it when they got hired by the Mccanns.
To look at the pictures of these people makes me think;"you have got to be KIDDING me".I saw this guy on 48 hours and this is really all I have to go on.Could someone offer up info on this agency and their track record?

About the dogs....They were not newbies."Theses guys" are the best in your neck of the woods!The training is intense and they do not "hit" on urine, blood, etc. of others when given a specifiate scent to track.They have no motive or stake in the crime.They can NOT be swayed by money or public opinion.With all the fiasco in this investigation they are, IMHO,the only ones to be believed.If they Hit on a corpse,take it to the bank.True,they are just an investigative tool but I trust them over that agencey sitting in nice new offices thanks to Madeleines`money.Shame on them!!

Perhaps you should do some research on the dogs? The way they work is extremely complex and they are used as a tool. The dog alerting is a means to an end and not an end in itself and they DO false alert - there are numerous research papers about this on the Internet if you care to look for them.

I asked and was told what is the "scent of death". If you google it, you will find lots of hits for the McCann case. It's not a technical term. I was told that it is a chemical whose name I forget but which has "cadaver" as its stem. It is present in decomposing bodies but it is also present in urine and semen and there are articles online which tell of cadaver dogs false alerting on urine and semen (I think I posted links to these articles on this forum, but it might have been Websleuths). They are trained to find this chemical and that is precisely what they are doing - it's just that often it isn't an actual corpse producing the chemical. I suppose it's a bit like a metal detector. It will beep when it detects metal, but not all metal is gold.

Therefore, the dogs alerting is only significant if a corpse or forensic evidence of a corpse is then found. The British dogs are undoubtedly good at what they do in that if a corpse were hidden or buried in the localities that they searched in, they would most likely have found it. However in this case they didn't and their supposed "alerts" are meaningless on their own in the eyes of the courts.

There is also a video tape of the dogs at work and people who have seen it have claimed that the dogs were treated differently when it came to the McCann car. These witnesses claim that the McCann car was placed in a "line up" of cars in an indoor car park and that the sniffer dog did not alert at first and that it was taken back and made to sniff the car again and it subsequently DID alert. It was NOT taken back to the other cars. If true, a defence lawyer would make mincemeat of that.

[Seashell]

Good morning,
I wonder what happened to that quirky guy that said he knew that Madeleine was alive and he would have her home by Xmas!!!
I have tried to find out more about these people and find that they have moved into new offices.They sure fell into it when they got hired by the Mccanns.
To look at the pictures of these people makes me think;"you have got to be KIDDING me".I saw this guy on 48 hours and this is really all I have to go on.Could someone offer up info on this agency and their track record?
I feel they were involved for the big bucks? also to be 100% sure madeleinne would be home by xmas, was taking it too far, if it was the case she was found then why the hell werent the authorities alerted? :shrug:

About the dogs....They were not newbies."Theses guys" are the best in your neck of the woods!The training is intense and they do not "hit" on urine, blood, etc. of others when given a specifiate scent to track.They have no motive or stake in the crime.They can NOT be swayed by money or public opinion.With all the fiasco in this investigation they are, IMHO,the only ones to be believed.If they Hit on a corpse,take it to the bank.True,they are just an investigative tool but I trust them over that agencey sitting in nice new offices thanks to Madeleines`money.Shame on them!!
Dogs are taught to detect the smell of death and arent corruptible nor make mistakes so am in full agreement with you on this one.
They are used even in big natural disasters such as earthquakes and have been helpfull on rescue missions.

[Jayelles]

The chemical is called cadaverine:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaverine

Cadaverine is a foul-smelling molecule produced by protein hydrolysis during putrefaction of animal tissue. Cadaverine is a toxic diamine with the formula NH2(CH2)5NH2, which is similar to putrescine. Cadaverine is also known by the names 1,5-pentanediamine and pentamethylenediamine.
......However, this diamine is not purely associated with putrefaction. It is also produced in small quantities by living beings. It is partially responsible for the distinctive smell of urine and semen.

[Jayelles]

Here is one commentary on the dogs from The Times:-

Those who told me about the dogs’ searches say they involved little objective science. It has been suggested that the HRD dog was treated differently in the McCanns’ apartment than in the others. The dog kept sniffing and running off and it was called back on several occasions. Eventually it “alerted”, meaning it went stiff and stayed still.

Then the blood dog was called in and directed to the area where the other dog had alerted. Eventually this dog alerted in the same place – behind the sofa in the lounge, which is where the trace of blood was supposedly found.

The cars were lined up, not in a controlled environment, but in the underground public car park opposite Portimao police station. Again the dog was led quickly from one car to the next until he reached a Renault with “Find Madeleine” stickers all over it. The dog sniffed and moved on to the next car, but was called back. The dog was taken around the McCanns’ car for about a minute, as opposed to the few seconds devoted to the other cars. Then the dog went rigid, an “alert”, and the doors and the boot were opened. It was this that led to the recovery of some body fluids that the PJ suspected would contain traces of Madeleine’s DNA, and which led to the supposed revelation that her body must have been carried in the car.

The role of such dogs is normally intended to find a body or remains. Without any subsequent discovery the alerts amount to little more than an indication – or worse: in one recent case in Wisconsin a judge concluded that similarly trained dogs were “no more reliable than the flip of a coin”, after hearing evidence that they were wrong far more often than they were right.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3040094.ece

A video recording exists of the dogs at work so there is a permanent and undisputable record of it. However, if the above is an accurate observation, a defence lawyer would make good use of it.

[Babootje]

What is really strange about the case (and one of the reasons suspicion fell on the McCanns) is, that while the window and shutters were open, Kate immediately thought an abduction happened.
But the staff of the Oceans Club stated that the old shutters were very difficult to open and it would make very much noise to do so.
The same moment (approx 09.15 pm) Jane Tanner saw the (so she now believes) abductor, Gerry talked at Jeremy Wilkins, a TV producer the McCanns met at their holiday. The talked for about 10 minutes. Nor Gerry, nor Jeremy saw the abductor although they were at the same time at the same place (in a small street). Furthermore: would an abductor take the risk to (in the few minutes time he has to do so, reconstruction say 8 minutes) open noisy shutters with Gerry and Jeremy standing next to it. Go in and out of the appartment? I cannot believe that.
The man Jane saw (iff she saw one) could not possibly have been the abductor.

This is one of the contradictions in the statements the police (of course) wants to know more of it.