This is one really pathetic CT. Mushy and truethat, you have nothing but idle speculation with nothing to back it up at all. At least those who think Amanda Knox is innocent (I don't think she is) have some reasonable evidence for their beliefs. All you can point to is personal incredulity and whackjob websites. Ridiculous.
Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery
- Thread starter truethat
- Start date
are you trolling? Seriously? wack job websites? They are nothing more than a place to access the case files released by the pj, with all the information and citations and links to original documents you need. How is that a wack job website. Please describe why a website that offers facts complete transcripts of real case files released by the police with citations and links isnt good enough for you?
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
What racism? That the Portugese police screwed up and tried to cover their asses?
Much like how the British police did with Jean Charles De Menezes?
It's not racism to assume that a foreign police force isn't flawless.
Rolfe
Adult human female
No, Mark, you have to realise that each person can only say anything critical about people of their own race. Or maybe nationality. Or possibly both.
It doesn't matter if you're discussing kiddie rape, if the perp is of a different race, as far as you are concerned it Didn't Happen.
:
Rolfe.
It doesn't matter if you're discussing kiddie rape, if the perp is of a different race, as far as you are concerned it Didn't Happen.
:Rolfe.
Its racist because weather you know it or not, you bought into the media propoganda that the pj are a bunch of bumnling idiots, where do you get the idea they messed up the investigation? The british media? If you would actually look at the evidence yourself you would see what a good job they did, despite being disrupted at every turn by the brittish, in his book amaral who was the lead investagator explains how downing street forced his removal from the case shortly after the mccanns were made arguidos, the evidencd which you can look at yourseld shows th ffs saying there was a positive dna match for maddie in the boot of the mccans hire car which was rented after she went missing, andwas why they were made arguidos and attempted to explain by saying they kept dirty nappies in the boot. After the pj arrested the mccanns the ffa changed their mind and said the sample was too decomposed to be conclusive. Go look at the police records if you dont believe me
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
You seem to miss my point.
Whether or not the Portuguese police made a mistake, it's not racist to report that they did.
Please god stop spelling British with two t's.
I skimmed the thread more than once, and every time I read this I see "The Three Are Guidos" when I read it.
As Conspiracy Theories go, this one is lame, in my humble opinion.
Here mushy, free punctuation; no charge:
.....................
Its racist because they ddnt make a mistake, you claimed they due to nothing more than the fact you think less of their abilities to handle the case because they are foreign.
To the guy below you, lame ct? Read the evidence, its all there, just go read it before dismissing it. How can you people call yourself skeptics when you all refused to look at the presented evidence?
Rolfe
Adult human female
You know what, Mushy? If you want to persuade anyone on this forum to your point of view, it's a good idea to have a point of view that you can explain in your own words. Shouting, read this web site sheeple, doesn't cut it.
You complain that people are getting their view of the case from the British media (the media that monstered the McCanns quite savagely, and had to pay them quite a lot of money in damages, by the way), but all you are suggesting is that we should get our view of the case from your selected web site instead.
Not biting.
While it is of course essential to provide links to the evidence you are basing your arguments on, and a link to a well-expressed exposition of your own point of view is not out of place in addition to your own explanation, saying nothing much but "look at this web site" isn't going to change anyone's mind.
So get to it. In your own words, as clearly as you can, explain why you think this wasn't just a simple, opportunistic stranger-abduction.
Rolfe.
You complain that people are getting their view of the case from the British media (the media that monstered the McCanns quite savagely, and had to pay them quite a lot of money in damages, by the way), but all you are suggesting is that we should get our view of the case from your selected web site instead.
Not biting.
While it is of course essential to provide links to the evidence you are basing your arguments on, and a link to a well-expressed exposition of your own point of view is not out of place in addition to your own explanation, saying nothing much but "look at this web site" isn't going to change anyone's mind.
So get to it. In your own words, as clearly as you can, explain why you think this wasn't just a simple, opportunistic stranger-abduction.
Rolfe.
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Firstly im amazed at how you are still getting what im saying wrong. Firstly i dont use the word sheeple. Secondly, if you think the mccanns got a rough time off the media you are one of the most delusional people ive ever come across. Thirdly, if i explained my opinion in my own words, you would ask for evidence. Ive linked you to the evidence , and let me clarify, those sites contain the actual case files not some persons opinion, the actual case files, with citations to where they which bit of released evidence they copied it from so you can check the files yourself
Ilooklike ACrowley
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 82
Just found all this now as the McCanns are in the papers again... but just wanted to pick up on the Ben Goladacre piece.
Columns in Newspapers are opinion and not fact, there's also an element of entertainment... particularly in the Bad Science column.
However even taking that into account - the experiment referred to is flawed. Surely at some point the sniffer dogs should also have had boxes with drugs / explosives in them. Then if the dogs found those boxes an hypothesis could be drawn. All that can be extrapolated from the experiment carried out is that the dogs would sometimes indicate a false positive. Furthermore that this was also more likely to happen if the handler had an expectation.
However if we accept the results of that test all we are saying is that animals and humans are fallible... and that is certainly true. With the dogs used in the McCann case they have reliably found bodies in the past [and since I believe] but they no doubt have also had false positives too... but if those false positives are more likely because of handler expectation then are we saying that in the McCann case there was an expectation?
The end result either way is that it is not reliable evidence. And at no time would it ever be admissible in court.
Just one other thing re-doctors medicating their children. Strictly speaking doctors are not allowed to self medicate or prescribe drugs for their family. Clearly it happens... if you are caught you can get struck off. If it did result in a death you would get struck off.
The only thing that can be said about the McCann case for certain is that a lot of mistakes were made by all parties involved. Both before the event and after. The event itself will always be a matter of speculation.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes, that I believe! 
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
BaldSeagull
Scholar
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2011
- Messages
- 58
Inspector Clouseau could solve this case.
http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf
"Working purely from the statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner,
and adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -
Gerry McCann left the Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins 9:09 - 9:13 pm
Jane Tanner left Tapas bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying child across top of road 9:11.05s
There is therefore, on their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder
to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to the top of the road. To
walk from the front door or window of the apartment to the left behind the low wall, then
across the car park, then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds. and a
further 5 seconds to cross the street. [16]
He has therefore around one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and
exit. This is an important point for the understanding of what happened."
http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf
"Working purely from the statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner,
and adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -
Gerry McCann left the Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins 9:09 - 9:13 pm
Jane Tanner left Tapas bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying child across top of road 9:11.05s
There is therefore, on their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder
to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to the top of the road. To
walk from the front door or window of the apartment to the left behind the low wall, then
across the car park, then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds. and a
further 5 seconds to cross the street. [16]
He has therefore around one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and
exit. This is an important point for the understanding of what happened."
The investigation by the Metropolitan police has revealed that the 9.11.05 sighting is unlikely to be the abductor with Madeleine. The Met's investigation is being discussed on tonight's BBC Crimewatch, on now.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Assuming that the McCanns are telling the truth it's always seemed to me that the likeliest scenario is that Madeline woke up, found her parents missing and the door unlocked, and wandered out into the night in search of them. She unfortunately encountered the one person in a million whose reaction to finding a little girl wandering around a holiday resort on her own was not to immediately take her to someone in authority so her parents could be located, i.e. it was a crime of opportunity.
Well watching the Crimewatch reconstruction it appears the original time-line was wrong; that is the sighting at 9:15pm of a man carrying a child has now been explained innocently. Also there seems to have been a steady stream of adults leaving the dinner table to check on children; which with other evidence seems to point to someone getting into the apartment.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I was watching, but a cousin returned a phone call in the middle. What was the conclusion about the time of the abduction?
Rolfe.
Rolfe.