Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

BaldSeagull said:
It should have been put on a bit later in the year. Just before Christmas, at the start of the pantomime season.
Click to expand...

Again please explain why we should ignore the analysis of the Metropolitan Police in favour of an amateur effort by someone with no access to anything but media reports?

For the record I have little sympathy for the McCanns; I've always felt they were somewhat negligent(as my sister pointed out after watching the reconstruction if there was a crèche why weren't the kids in it?) and my own pet theory was that Madeleine woke up and suffered some sort of accident in the apartment that the McCanns covered up.

BUT

That was nothing more than a speculation based on the scant available information. Looking at the reconstruction based on the actual evidence that pet theory needs to be put down...
 
Ive been reading that site, and it seems to take sources from released police files and using media reports as additional evidence. Either way, the mccanns seem at lease suspicious.
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
Ive been reading that site, and it seems to take sources from released police files and using media reports as additional evidence. Either way, the mccanns seem at lease suspicious.
Click to expand...

So still working from a much smaller pool of evidence (allowing that press reports can actually be called evidence) than the Metropolitan Police have access to. Both the Portuguese and British police have cleared the McCanns as suspects. I still want to know why the author of the article thinks their amateur efforts with a fraction of the available evidence should supersede the opinions of the professionals with access to all the evidence?
 
Garrison said:
Again please explain why we should ignore the analysis of the Metropolitan Police in favour of an amateur effort by someone with no access to anything but media reports?

For the record I have little sympathy for the McCanns; I've always felt they were somewhat negligent(as my sister pointed out after watching the reconstruction if there was a crèche why weren't the kids in it?) and my own pet theory was that Madeleine woke up and suffered some sort of accident in the apartment that the McCanns covered up.

BUT

That was nothing more than a speculation based on the scant available information. Looking at the reconstruction based on the actual evidence that pet theory needs to be put down...
Click to expand...

Garrison said:
So still working from a much smaller pool of evidence (allowing that press reports can actually be called evidence) than the Metropolitan Police have access to. Both the Portuguese and British police have cleared the McCanns as suspects. I still want to know why the author of the article thinks their amateur efforts with a fraction of the available evidence should supersede the opinions of the professionals with access to all the evidence?
Click to expand...


Of course you're right about the information, Garrison, as about the work of the police forces involved.
What this CrimeWatch show did, at least in my opinion, was show that based on Jane Tanner's testimony, the police and all investigators, both professional and amateur, have been on a wild goose chase ever since JT came out with her story.
Poor Jane Tanner. She wanted so much to help and ended up leading the police completely astray.

I can't help noticing everyone's skating cautiously around the Smith sighting, as well they should. It's a potential bomb, after all. However, if it's now the centre of the current investigation, it has to be taken more seriously, doesn't it.
 
pakeha said:
Of course you're right about the information, Garrison, as about the work of the police forces involved.
What this CrimeWatch show did, at least in my opinion, was show that based on Jane Tanner's testimony, the police and all investigators, both professional and amateur, have been on a wild goose chase ever since JT came out with her story.
Poor Jane Tanner. She wanted so much to help and ended up leading the police completely astray.
Click to expand...

And that desire may have helped shape her recollection of an event that at the time it happened she probably wasn't paying much attention to. Of course the police should have allowed for that possibility at the time but seem instead seem to have latched on to it; though it seems to be a common theme in failed police investigations. They decided one piece of evidence is 'key' and ignore anything that contradicts it.

I can't help noticing everyone's skating cautiously around the Smith sighting, as well they should. It's a potential bomb, after all. However, if it's now the centre of the current investigation, it has to be taken more seriously, doesn't it.
Click to expand...

Indeed but I think they are worried about the media setting off a witch hunt that will muddy the waters yet again. I suspect the hysterical coverage at the time didn't exactly help the original investigation; swamping it with 'leads' that just overloaded them.
 
jargon buster said:
Is it just me or is something wrong with this?
http://s13.postimg.org/f0avnrhfr/Screen_Shot_2013_10_14_at_22_14_20.png

Its meant to be one man, it looks like two completely different people. :boggled:
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of eyewitness evidence.

Garrison said:
<snip>though it seems to be a common theme in failed police investigations. They decided one piece of evidence is 'key' and ignore anything that contradicts it.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Garrison said:
Indeed but I think they are worried about the media setting off a witch hunt that will muddy the waters yet again. I suspect the hysterical coverage at the time didn't exactly help the original investigation; swamping it with 'leads' that just overloaded them.
Click to expand...
Somewhat cynically I don't believe that the current review is actually expected to achieve an solution to the case.
 
Garrison said:
So still working from a much smaller pool of evidence (allowing that press reports can actually be called evidence) than the Metropolitan Police have access to. Both the Portuguese and British police have cleared the McCanns as suspects. I still want to know why the author of the article thinks their amateur efforts with a fraction of the available evidence should supersede the opinions of the professionals with access to all the evidence?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the author, you would need to ask him. One thing is for sure though. Some of the evidence from the PJ released documentation sure does make the mccanns seem a little suspicious.
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
I can't speak for the author, you would need to ask him. One thing is for sure though. Some of the evidence from the PJ released documentation sure does make the mccanns seem a little suspicious.
Click to expand...

And clearly when looking at all the evidence the PJ and Metropolitan Police came to a different conclusion from the amateur sleuths so who do you think is more credible?
 
catsmate1 said:
Welcome to the world of eyewitness evidence.


Indeed.


Somewhat cynically I don't believe that the current review is actually expected to achieve an solution to the case.
Click to expand...

I agree, the MP want to be sure they've done all they can but at this late date a resolution seems unlikely. Of course that's what people thought about the Amanda Berry case so there's always a chance.
 
Of course the police will be better at detective work than an amateur. I don't get what point you are arguing. I still feel there is something suspicious about the McCanns.

Police wont charge anyone on slight circumstantial evidence, but we can still look at that evidence as laymen and think its a bit suspicious.
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
Of course the police will be better at detective work than an amateur. I don't get what point you are arguing. I still feel there is something suspicious about the McCanns.

Police wont charge anyone on slight circumstantial evidence, but we can still look at that evidence as laymen and think its a bit suspicious.
Click to expand...

And what value do you think that opinion has? Sorry but you are engaged in classic CT behaviour; looking at a few bits and pieces of evidence in isolation and announcing that 'it doesn't look right'.

In fact such vague suspicions about the McCanns contributed to derailing the investigation for quite some time. As I said in an earlier post I did have my own pet theory but in the face of actual evidence I've let it go. Some people don't seem to be able to do that.
 
Well for example, i don't like the mccanns because they left 3 sleeping kids in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country which at best resulted in one of them getting abducted. People had reported the children crying as they were left alone on the nights before that, so it does not seem to be a one off. They then spend the best part of a year flying round europe meeting with the pope and collecting donations.

Thats the part i don't like about them.

Just to be clear, im not saying they killed the child etc etc, im saying they are guily of neglect. But for some reason no one seems to care.
 
Last edited:
BaldSeagull said:
That sighting has always been on record, but was never given any significance. Only now they introduce a previously unmentioned "night creche" to explain Jane Tanner's sighting at 9.15, without her having to be outed as a liar. In six years, no one thought to check out the "night creche"? Seriously?

A "night creche" a few yards from the restaurant, and ALL the adults with children in the party left their kids in apartments, alone, at the other side of the complex?
Click to expand...

It always seemed odd enough previously that the entire party would skimp on paying for the resort's "baby-sitting service," but it's now even more weird that there was also a creche they could have used (assuming they're not actually one and the same, in the first place).
 
Information Analyst said:
It always seemed odd enough previously that the entire party would skimp on paying for the resort's "baby-sitting service," but it's now even more weird that there was also a creche they could have used (assuming they're not actually one and the same, in the first place).
Click to expand...


Sometimes the creches aren't run by the hotel or resort, but by the holiday company - and are only available to those who booked through that travel agent, for example.
 
Garrison said:
And that desire may have helped shape her recollection of an event that at the time it happened she probably wasn't paying much attention to. Of course the police should have allowed for that possibility at the time but seem instead seem to have latched on to it; though it seems to be a common theme in failed police investigations. They decided one piece of evidence is 'key' and ignore anything that contradicts it.



Indeed but I think they are worried about the media setting off a witch hunt that will muddy the waters yet again. I suspect the hysterical coverage at the time didn't exactly help the original investigation; swamping it with 'leads' that just overloaded them.
Click to expand...
Garrison, do you recall who released that drawing of the person Jane Tanner saw via a press conference?
Hint: it wasn't the police.
In any case, my focus is on Jane Tanner, poor woman.
Little could she have known her testimony would skew not only the PJ but the Leicestershire forces assigned to the case from day one.

catsmate1 said:
...Somewhat cynically I don't believe that the current review is actually expected to achieve an solution to the case.
Click to expand...
;)
 
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle said:
Sometimes the creches aren't run by the hotel or resort, but by the holiday company - and are only available to those who booked through that travel agent, for example.
Click to expand...

Quite true. This is probably one of those cases were a bit more information might have come in handy, but it still doesn't detract from leaving young children unattended in such circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I have only one thing to say to Gerry and Kate....
"But for your actions........"

If nothing else the constant dragging up of this case should at least prompt other parents to think twice about leaving children unattended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom