Madeleine McCann: Logically

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
An English solicitor, Tony Bennett, has just been found to have violated court orders to stop publishing allegations of wrongdoing against Kate and Gerry McCann in respect of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. Mr. Bennett has been sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended for one year (whatever that means), plus court costs.

www.bbc.co.uk...

His campaign against the McCanns will now come to a complete stop. He says so himself.

I didn't follow Mr. Bennett's campaign. I don't know what allegations he made against the McCanns. I don't make allegations against them. I do comment and speculate about the oddities of the case and try to think clearly about them and their possible implications.

There are oddities.

The police have stated publicly that they believe there is a chance that Madeleine is still alive. This despite the fact that police sniffer dogs scented death in the McCann's apartment in Praia da Luz (Ocean Club 5A), an apartment where no human death is known to have occurred, but where one little girl is known to have vanished.

Isn't that odd? I think it's odd. There must be a reason for it. What is the reason?

There is a family, surname Smith, who were visiting Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

They said that, on the very night of the disappearance, at the very time of the disappearnce, they saw someone, who resembled Gerry McCann, carrying a small blonde girl, who appeared to be sleeping, at some distance from the Ocean Club, where Madeleine and her siblings had been tucked up in bed.

I have read that the daughter of the Smith family, Aoife (ee-fa) Smith, is the only family member to have gotten a look at the face of the man carrying the child.

Aoife has never done an E-fit drawing of that man, that has been made available to the public, that I am aware of.

Isn't that odd? What could be the reason for that?

At 12:01 AM BST 04 May 2007, on the Telegraph website, in the UK, this story appeared:

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal

By staff and agencies

12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

. . .

A three-year-old British girl has gone missing while on a family holiday in Portugal, the Foreign Office said today.

Portuguese police are investigating the disappearance from a holiday complex in Praia da Luz in the western Algarve.

A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.

"They reported it straight away," he said, adding that consular assistance was being offered.


Am I the only one who thinks this story is odd?

Let's leave aside the fact that the story must have been given to the Telegraph by a Foreign Office spokesperson less than two hours after Madeleine was announced as having gone missing.

Let's leave aside the (to me at least) odd fact that the Foreign Office issued a statement at all in this case. Surely the Portugese Policia Judiciaria or Interpol ought to have been issuing statements.

The really odd thing about the statement issued by the Foreign Office is that there is no description of the missing child!!!

Now, I know, everybody knows, that Great Britain is not what it used to be. but it is still a "great power". Isn't it? . . . ????

A foreign Office statement about a missing child, and no description of the missing child!?!?!?!

I'm sorry for the above paragraph. I'm just a hack writer. Jonathan Swift, were he still alive, would be needed to do adequate justice to that mess.

Would it be too much to inquire who left the description of the child out of the statement?

Moving on.

How long can one carry a dead child before one becomes aware that it is dead?

If one is to believe that the Smith family actually saw the abductor of Madeleine McCann carrying her at a distance from the Ocean Club, it would appear the answer to the above question is "quite a distance".

Maybe it is.

That's what must have happened, if that was the abductor seen by the Smiths and if the story that Kate and Gerry are telling is true, . . . and, most crucially, if the sniffer dogs actually did scent death in Ocean Club 5A.

An abductor wouldn't continue to carry a child that was dead, would he?

If he had scooped up an inert child, injured during a chase around the apartment, not knowing she was dead, surely, in all but the most unlikely set of circumstances, he would set down the body the moment he realized the child was dead, in some convenient corner.

No kidnapper would carry a dead body around with him, in the open, would he?

I've never done a comparison carry. My ex-girlfriend got really drunk one night and I noticed, in bed, that she slept like a dead log. She didn't seem the same. She was breathing but she seemed dead. Different from normal. I put my arm around her. It was different. I noticed right away.

Very odd. I think I could tell within a minute or so that something was wrong, if I were carrying a small dead body. Wouldn't you notice that?

Carrying a dead body.

Odd.

Was Madeleine alive if or when she was seen by the Smiths? Could Madeleine still be alive?

If the dogs were right, the story would be completely different, but it would appear that the police do not believe the dog's indications. Martin Grime's association with the Leicestershire Police ended in 2007.

Very perplexing situation.
edit on 21-2-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Didnt they drug their baby girl to get her to sleep? I think anyone who does that is DODGY.

If a child doesnt have a babysitter thats DODGY.

I mean come on, she should have had a loving nanny in close quarters to read her a book and off to the land of nod and mum and dad come home as soon as they can. Especially as they were quite well off, so it wouldnt be as if they couldnt afford to do that.

Instead what you find are two horribly irresponsible characters

Suggest ya'll read this mccannexposure.wordpress.com...

Besides this I am a mother and If I left my son away from me and went partying. You know what hes a playful kid and I would BET on it that he would wander off. A child that wanders off, so delicately.. as remember they are only small, would hardly wake up other kids. They are probably stressed "wheres mum and dad?" and just feel they will find out for themselves. Poor souls. Anyway, so he would wander off, and guess what IF their happens to be a dodgy lurker , maybe a peodophile who is waiting for his moment, in the middle of the night, he will think " lucky days" and just pick her up, shove her in the car and GONE.

Very simple.
edit on 21-2-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 

One of the problems of this case is the intermingling of the child neglect aspect of the case with the kidnapping\disposal aspect of the case.

The child neglect aspect is connected to the other aspect but the real crux of the matter is the kidnap\disposal.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I did include in my post how it would have accured. I believe most kids are just picked up and ushered into the car or apartment of the child predator .Its not rocket science..

Read any case of child killers and they do this usually.

He never carried her , kids are friendly when their scared. You know most teen and kid killers speak to the kids first and have a " laugh" befriend them before .
edit on 21-2-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 

She definitely is gone.

It's a confusing case.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Could have been somebody within the hotel resort itself who kinda watched what they did, supposedly they checked up on the children every 30 minutes. If this person kidnapped madaline and then took her to his hotel room he could then leave the hotel room with a suitcase and no body would suspect, I rest my case.. how easy it is.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Also this was found on wikipedia "

An Ocean Club nanny, Charlotte Pennington, who was one of the first people to arrive at the apartment, said that Kate screamed both "They've taken her, they've taken her!" and "Madeleine's gone!"

haveen.wikipedia.org...

Im sorry thats not the first thing you say if your child is missing . The first thing you do is search around the area. Youd never accuse anyone until you have exhausted your surroundings and called her name to the roof tops.

You wouldnt say " THEY" who is they???..... My question is , WHY would Kate say this.

Id be likely to call the police and the hotel reception so they get those CCTVs up straight away and then search for her.


edit on 21-2-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
There are many murky aspects of this case, even after so many years have passed. What I'm trying to do is to use logic as a sort of radar to peer into the murk.

We know things for which there has been no adequate explanation, as alluded to in my OP.

Note: Mr. Bennett was sentenced to three months imprisonment, suspended for one year, not three years as stated in the OP.
edit on 21-2-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Mr. Bennett has been sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended for one year (whatever that means), plus court costs.


A suspended sentence is where you don't go to prison for the specified period - in this case a year, as long as you don't break the law again in that time.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Basicaly the Mcanns, money grabbing swingers killed there daughter and covered it up or disposed of her body then made millions in donations from gullible people. Pretty simple really.

Why they killed her I dunno, maybe the little girl was already dead after being administered drugs from two doctors she might have slipped and fell in a drugged up state, they came home, covered it up. Who knows, the fact is though there guilty as sin. Just such a shame the Portuguese police are so incompetent or these two scumbags could be rotting in jail right now and NOT spending all the millions of charity money they have.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
This is a link to the book by Goncalo Amaral, the suspiciously discredited police officer in charge of the case in Portugal. In it he says how he suspects that Madeleine had an accident in the apartment whilst drugged that resulted in her death and that the parents then covered it up. The book is banned in the UK and the only way to read it is via this website...

The Truth of the Lie


His conclusion is rather similar to my suspicion which I posted in a different thread some time ago and have copied here...




This is purely speculation, but this is what I suspect happened...

How many parents would leave a child just shy of 4 years old and a 2 year old alone in an apartment? Not only is it seriously neglectful, It couldn't practically be done. One or both wouldn't sleep soundly enough to be left. One or both would wake up and be distressed - assuming they'd go to sleep in the first place! Any parent will tell you this.

Now, there is a way around that little problem, given that both parents are doctors, and that is to drug the children so that they are unconscious and therefore freeing the McCanns to go out and play.

Obviously, drugs can be very dangerous and here I suspect Madeleine was either given an accidental overdose or she had a reaction to the drug that resulted in her death. After that it's all down to the McCanns lying to cover it up.





edit on 21/2/13 by Insomniac because: amended text



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Insomniac
 
Do you think a kidnapper would carry a dead body, even a little one, as far as the place where the Smith family saw someone carrying a small child?

Personally, I don't think so.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


No absolutely not. If Madeleine was abducted there would have been a vehicle nearby. Any other option would carry a high risk of being seen or caught.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I've just finished watching the Portuguese documentary based on the book by Gonçalo Amaral. It was also banned in the UK. This was overturned by a High Court Judge in 2011. Nonetheless, no British TV station has shown it!

It's compelling viewing particularly the bit about the Cadaver Dogs. The implied pressure by the UK Government on the Portuguese is interesting too! For those of us who don't speak Portuguese, it's subtitled in English.

For some reason I can't embed the documentary so here's the link...

The Truth of the Lie Documentary



edit on 22/2/13 by Insomniac because: Embedding woes!



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Insomniac
 

The cadaver dog angle on this investigation is very interesting. Gerry McCann has said that his own investigation of the use of cadaver dogs has revealed that they are "unreliable".

Gerry might be overstating this but there is no doubt that cadaver dog indications must be handled very carefully in cases where they do not actually locate hard evidence like a body, for example.

This is from an academic paper on the use of sniffer dogs. It refers specifically to instances where no body was located and dog indications may be being used to develop probable cause to believe a crime has occurred in a location or that some particular person may have been involved in a crime.

www.hhrdd.org...


Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.


Police in the UK have stated that they believe that Madeleine may still be alive. They have severed their relationship with Martin Grime. He did not recertify Eddie and Keela when their certification period elapsed. He did not have them retested.

One would like to ask the police in the UK if they believe that there was some problem with Grime or with the indications of his dogs that led them to discard this part of the investigation.

None of the forensic evidence gathered from the apartment in Praia da Luz, derived from the dog indications was considered to be conclusively connected to Madeleine.

There is also the question of whether Martin Grime falsified an alert to the so-called "Cuddle Cat" when his dogs searched the McCanns rented villa, in order to cover up a false positive alert that Eddie gave at that time. The sequence of events around this situation can be seen in the original video footage of the search of the villa, but is cut out of shorter clips that one usually sees on YouTube.

The video in question is, Search of Vista Mar Villa, 02 August 2007. It may be viewed at the following page.

www.mccannfiles.com...

In the video Eddie gives an alert to something on a counter top. This alert is not explained by Martin Grime when it occurs, but later in the video, after Eddie had shown some interest in Cuddle Cat, in another room, but had given no alert, Grime then produces Cuddle Cat from the cupboard under the counter top that Eddie had previously alerted to, even though Cuddle Cat had been shown as being in another room earlier.

Is this why the UK police believe that there is a possibility that Madeleine is still alive?

Do they really believe that she is still alive?

Was she alive when she left Ocean Club 5A?

Whatever the case, the cadaver dog issue is not decisive in this case. I am no longer sure that anyone died in Apartment 5A. I don't believe that Grime's dog Eddie was reliable on that investigation. I don't think the UK police believe that they (Grime or the dog) were reliable on that investigation either.

Are the dog's indications really worthless or do the police simply believe that because of the way Cuddle Cat was handled, that they must proceed as though the dogs had never entered the investigation?
edit on 22-2-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Independent studies od the reliability of cadaver dogs concludes that the dogs are highly reliable but infallable. Although they couldn't positely identify Madeleine, their reaction points towards the presence of a body.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Reply to post by Insomniac
 


Sorry, I typed the above in haste and I'm now using the mobile app so I can't edit the post. It should have read that the dogs are NOT infallible, although added to the other bits of evidence and the inconsistencies in the McCanns story it all looks rather damning. Even if my suspicions are incorrect, they placed their children in a position of danger and paid the ultimate price.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Insomniac
 

They've lost a daughter, for sure.

What do you think of the story posted in the Telegraph website? How did it get there, and without a description of Madeleine? What would be the point of publicizing a disappearance without describing the person who disappeared?

That story is probably the first time in the history of the world that a news outlet has published a story about a child who is suspected of being kidnapped without giving a description of the child.

Who left out the description of the child? At some point between Praia da Luz and the Foreign Office someone decided that the story of what happened to Kate and Gerry should be known to the world, but that it was not so important to give a description of their missing daughter. Is that not correct?

Who made that decision? Who in the Foreign Office would go along with that decision and why?

Wouldn't someone at the Telegraph say, "Yes we'd be glad to publish this story but we'll hold it until we get details of the girl's appearance."

This is very strange to me.

What you have is someone in Praia da Luz contacting someone in England within an hour or so of 10:00 PM when Madeleine's disappearance was announced and that person using their contacts to get the Foreign Office to release the story to the Telegraph, without a description of Madeleine.

What is going on?

Prior to 9/11, Sky News, The Sun, The Telegraph, even the Times would have the timeline of these events, down to the minute, published and thoroughly scrutinized.

A child goes missing in Portugal and within an hour the Foreign Office is contacted and within another hour the Foreign Office has released a story, telling what the parents of the missing child did, but omitting to describe the missing child.

Aren't people entitled to an explanation of this, or has an "iron curtain" descended upon the people of Great Britain?

I think the circumstances of this peculiar news story about Madeleine could well have a connection to the facts of what happened to her. The air should be cleared on this.

There are people who believe that Madeleine actually died the day before it was announced and who might consider anyone, high or low, who had a connection to that story, as an accessory after the fact of her disappearance.

I don't think it is unreasonable to want to know the full details of how that story came to be on the Telegraph website.

It is interesting to note that the one detail that might be considered substantive in any way, apart from the fact of the disappearance of the child itself, is the detail that:

"They reported it straight away."

I know that governments lie, but surely they tell the truth sometimes, don't they?

Why would they consider this particular fact to be of more importance than the description of the missing Madeleine?
edit on 22-2-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
This whole case never made sense to me because of one issue:

I'm not a mom, and was only an idiot teenage babysitter in a former life. And somebody would have had to kill me before I separated myself from the little ones I was charged with. In my mind, when their parents were gone, I was responsible for anything that happened, and I'd have rotted away on suicide watch if someone had so much as gotten into the home and slapped one of the kids. How could an actual mother have seen this any differently?

If you leave your little ones locked in a hotel room while you drink, you didn't want the kids anyway.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


Well, they went night after night on drinking bouts with their pals on the hotels premises. The other parents had a telecom where they could actually hear their children. However they did not. The neighbours above their hotel room reported hearing a girl crying for up to 90 minutes the night before she went missing. So is it possible that her abductor actually went into her room that night, then continued watching the parents moves and seized his moment.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join