Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: chrisgixer on 15 October 2013, 01:32:58
-
Yes sorry its a current affairs thing, I know. But....
The main suspect seen carrying the child by the flat where Mady was taken has been eliminated from enquiries, because, he came forward to police and said he was taking his daughter home FROM the cresh . He fits the description, blah, ok fine.
But, assuming the map showing the position of the sighting/flat/and cresh is facing north up for a minute, just for ease of explaining;
Suspect is walking East. Accross the road, in front of the witness. This means he's walking towards the cresh which is south east from the flat, at about 9.30 to 10 iirc, but TOWARDS the cresh, not away from as he would have been if picking up his child, and as they said he was on the programme.
What have I missed? :-\ why would he be walking towards the cresh when he's just picked up his child from there?
Should he the child carrying man still be a suspect, and the guy who came forward is a different bloke?
....and, given the lead on the child carrying man went dry in the first investigation, why the hell didn't they follow up on the second child carrying suspect heading south towards the sea anyway...? Seeing as they had bog all else to do constructively...?
-
27 views
Either we're all bored of the subject or nobody understands my point, as usual ;D
-
I think that most people are bored with it all to be honest, it has been a long long time now. The Portuguese were inept from the start IMO and I think that she is long gone.
-
I think that most people are bored with it all to be honest, it has been a long long time now. The Portuguese were inept from the start IMO and I think that she is long gone.
I wouldn't say bored, but I think most feel that after so long, she won't be found either at all or alive.
-
I think that most people are bored with it all to be honest, it has been a long long time now. The Portuguese were inept from the start IMO and I think that she is long gone.
I lost interest when I found out she wasn't the stig ;D
On a serious note ............ as a parent I feel for them as anyone would but she is well gone sadly :(
-
I'm still amazed that the McCanns thought it appropriate to leave a three year old and two year old twins unsupervised. Surely a babysitter could have been found. :-\......It wasn't the first time either. :-\
If the McCanns were less well educated, and articulate, and lived on a council estate while claiming benefits, the powers that be would probably taken their other kids taken into care as a matter of routine.
Sorry, but it smacks of double standards to me. :(
-
I'm still amazed that the McCanns thought it appropriate to leave a three year old and two year old twins unsupervised. Surely a babysitter could have been found. :-\......It wasn't the first time either. :-\
If the McCanns were less well educated, and articulate, and lived on a council estate while claiming benefits, the powers that be would probably taken their other kids taken into care as a matter of routine.
Sorry, but it smacks of double standards to me. :(
Shhhhh, your not aloud to say that anymore .............. victims rights and all that 'dangle berries'
-
I'm still amazed that the McCanns thought it appropriate to leave a three year old and two year old twins unsupervised. Surely a babysitter could have been found. :-\......It wasn't the first time either. :-\
Nail on head. Leaving kids that young alone, especially on holiday, where you are in a less familiar setting than home, was a grave error of judgement for which they have paid a heavy price. It's time for them to accept that and move on, IMHO.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again... I know the area they were staying in. My ex wife and I used to holiday nearby several times a year because her parents lived there.
Something is not right ::) Plus, they have changed their story several times ::)
I feel sorry for them but still think that there is much more to this than has been revealed
-
I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. :y
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
-
I agree.Something doesn't smell right.
Also,for the second time in 6 years I agree with opti. To leave kids as young as not much more than 1 year old with no adults present is disgraceful. If they were working class,council estate types they would have faced charges of neglect. If they are innocent,I have little sympathy for them tbh.
The little girl though,whatever the real truth is,I would imagine she was murdered around the time she disappeared,which is just hearbreaking.
-
I too, am sure there is more to it
I feel desperately sorry for the little girl, but make no excuses for having no sympathy for the parents, whatever possessed them to leave three such small children alone,
-
Did anybody watch the programme though...?
They talk about the timeline, as I'm sure you've heard, up to the "revelation" of confirming the identity of, what was previously thought to be, the culprit. And yes the story has changed. Since re investigating the case new evidence has changed the story again. The time line presents new FACTS, and we are asked to consider these, and these alone. ;)
The presenter asks to review the new evidence with an open mind. To start again, based on what they NOW know.
So ignoring that for a minute as most posts revolve around leaving the children unattended.
The Mcanns where at their evening meal, as they had done every night, with several other couples, at the Tappas bar the other side of the pool. They ALL left their children unattended during that period, leaving their meal regularly throughout to check up on them. This was a surprise to me, as I had assumed only the Mcanns had digressed. It seems the majority of adults present at the meal that evening where from that block on the resort. Seems it was the culture of the place if you like.
The crime is, the taking of the child, and its that crime that the programme and this thread is about. Much as I agree with what you've all said. The detective did describe the flat as "effectively open to the public" but moves on from that to the facts.
The programme is on iplayer now. Of which my concern is, the original suspected culprit has been wrongly discounted perhaps, given his movements.
Another thought I'm asking you to consider with your detective hats on, given the evidence of the programme ;) is, the number of leads followed up. It covers The Portuguese police though so is a bit pointless, tbh.
Having investigated the Id off the first suspect (now discounted), and that lead had dried up in the original investigation, why in earth did they not go on and consider the next lead, of the man carrying child walking towards the sea to the south west?
Like you I considered the Mcanns a bit stupid leaving the children unattended. I feel slightly less so now. But none of that means they should not have their case investigated properly. Does it? :o
-
Oh, what I'd give for a time machine. I could go back and sort this riddle once and for all.
-
Oh, what I'd give for a time machine. I could go back and sort this riddle once and for all.
Put yourself in their shoes, only now do they have a proper investigation. 7 years on.
But have you seen the programme? Any thoughts on "the case" ?
The Mcanns movements where routine. Anyone watching could have been picking their moment quite easily. Or, as was suggested, there where several burglaries at the time. She could simply have interrupted a burglary, and been taken to keep her quiet. Lord knows what would happen to her then though. I prefer the snatched to order theory tbh, at least she'd be more likely to be alive.
-
Oh, what I'd give for a time machine. I could go back and sort this riddle once and for all.
Put yourself in their shoes, only now do they have a proper investigation. 7 years on.
But have you seen the programme? Any thoughts on "the case" ?
The Mcanns movements where routine. Anyone watching could have been picking their moment quite easily. Or, as was suggested, there where several burglaries at the time. She could simply have interrupted a burglary, and been taken to keep her quiet. Lord knows what would happen to her then though. I prefer the snatched to order theory tbh, at least she'd be more likely to be alive.
Yes that seems favourite
-
Another one :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Ben_Needham
-
As some of you have already said the parents are to blame, you do not leave youngsters alone like they did . Something about this case is just not right, just hope the truth eventually surfaces.
-
The whole affair seems very fishy to me........
-
As some of you have already said the parents are to blame, you do not leave youngsters alone like they did . Something about this case is just not right, just hope the truth eventually surfaces.
Whilst I totally agree, and as already said, their other children should have been removed whilst assessments were completed; however................. :)
This happens a lot in holiday places, camp sites, Butlins etc etc........just a thought...........
-
As some of you have already said the parents are to blame, you do not leave youngsters alone like they did . Something about this case is just not right, just hope the truth eventually surfaces.
Whilst I totally agree, and as already said, their other children should have been removed whilst assessments were completed; however................. :)
This happens a lot in holiday places, camp sites, Butlins etc etc........just a thought...........
We always took our children to hotels which catered for children including an early evening meal and a baby patrol until midnight. The children's reps would check every 30 minutes on them and we would go in turn every 30 minutes 15 minutes later, so the children were only every alone for a maximum of 15 minutes. We never left the hotel and felt comfortable with this arrangement as I'm certain thousands of other parents were.
So castigating them over the children's arrangement's is a little over the top IMO, that said they were in an apartment not a hotel with child care. :(
-
My point is that the parents have told several different versions of "Truth" to this ;)
And, for the record, the entrance to the apartments is not within sight of the restaurant at all, in any way shape or form :-X
-
Snatched to order doesnt add up unforyunately imo. When people snatch kids to order I presume its for wealthy people who don't have kids of their own,or a similar scenario.It that were the case,I would imagine they would have taken one or both of the babies and not the older child.It makes it much easier for people to claim the child is their own.
-
It's time for them to accept that and move on, IMHO.
And miss out on all the fame, attention, and I'm sure money?
-
Sorry but I stick by what I said , I now take my grandchildren away quite often & I do not rely on others checking them, they are my responsibility just as my children were , how on earth could any parent/grandparent live with themselves after deciding to have an adult only meal & a child vanishing because of that... I in my line of work have dealt with child killers , sexual deviants & some dangerous individuals & still do on a daily basis ,funny thing is they all say they are innocent!! The guilty ones here are the parents who left them alone & vunerable.
-
Sorry but I stick by what I said , I now take my grandchildren away quite often & I do not rely on others checking them, they are my responsibility just as my children were , how on earth could any parent/grandparent live with themselves after deciding to have an adult only meal & a child vanishing because of that... I in my line of work have dealt with child killers , sexual deviants & some dangerous individuals & still do on a daily basis ,funny thing is they all say they are innocent!! The guilty ones here are the parents who left them alone & vunerable.
By blaming someone else ;)
-
Exactly, and why not make a bit of cash out of it as well !
-
Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?
Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!
Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.
GO WATCH IT!
-
I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. :y
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
I'm especially surprised at you tbh.
EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.
At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" ???
-
We are looking for the person that took the child, as the case presented in Crime watch. We have no other reliable info.
-
We are looking for the person that took the child, as the case presented in Crime watch. We have no other reliable info.
Trouble is Chris,after all this time is there any reliable info other than the child went/still is missing ???
-
We are looking for the person that took the child, as the case presented in Crime watch. We have no other reliable info.
Trouble is Chris,after all this time is there any reliable info other than the child went/still is missing ???
It doesn't matter as far as this thread goes, as the case was presented yesterday, and involves the decisions the UK police are making very recently.
The time issues are indeed difficult for the UK detectives though. But its those same detectives that presented the case on time watch. And that's what I'm asking you all to consider.
NOT what you may have heard prior to. :)
-
Poll added
-
I did see the programme ,like the police & the dozens of crime analysts I was also watching the body language of people involved ,has it not made anybody wonder why this "new evidence" has suddenly appeared.. A man holding a child is that unusual ? The whole incident beggars belief , give somebody enough rope springs to mind.
-
I did see the programme ,like the police & the dozens of crime analysts I was also watching the body language of people involved ,has it not made anybody wonder why this "new evidence" has suddenly appeared.. A man holding a child is that unusual ? The whole incident beggars belief , give somebody enough rope springs to mind.
Why does it begger belief?
Did you not ask why the the child carrier was walking towards the crèche, not away from it, having just picked the child up from the crèche? Which he was walking towards...?
-
Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?
Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!
Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.
GO WATCH IT!
Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)
-
Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?
Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!
Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.
GO WATCH IT!
Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)
Precisely my point. You can't say that, if you haven't seen it. Can you! ::)
-
Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?
Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!
Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.
GO WATCH IT!
Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)
Precisely my point. You can't say that, if you haven't seen it. Can you! ::)
I am aware of the contents of the programme. I don't need to sit through those idiots getting over excited over it. And I repeat, there isn't really anything genuinely new, is there?
-
Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?
Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!
Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.
GO WATCH IT!
Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)
Precisely my point. You can't say that, if you haven't seen it. Can you! ::)
I am aware of the contents of the programme. I don't need to sit through those idiots getting over excited over it. And I repeat, there isn't really anything genuinely new, is there?
If you'd seen it you would know. You don't need to watch the whole prog.
Your not in a position to answer my questions raised from the programme, until you have watched the programme. Jeez ::)
-
Trouble is, now. Its only a minor point anyway. You need to have seen it.
-
Despite everyone's conjecture, and an apparent dislike of the parents, we are talking about a little girl who may well have met a horrible death here.
-
Despite everyone's conjecture, and an apparent dislike of the parents, we are talking about a little girl who may well have met a horrible death here.
I have to say I'm surprised at the responses here. A trial of the parents my media and conjecture.
THE PARENTS DIDNT TAKE THE CHILD! Ffs!
-
Despite everyone's conjecture, and an apparent dislike of the parents, we are talking about a little girl who may well have met a horrible death here.
I have to say I'm surprised at the responses here. A trial of the parents my media and conjecture.
THE PARENTS DIDNT TAKE THE CHILD! Ffs!
But they left her alone for someone else to do so....................... :( :(
-
THE PARENTS DIDNT TAKE THE CHILD! Ffs!
No. Or at least maybe no ::). BUT they are significantly responsible for it.
-
Have just watched it, and it quite clearly shows the man and child walking away from the apartment, yet when he came forward he was heading back from the creche, which is most contradictory :-\
The next sighting being 45 minutes later a couple of blocks away, yet still no nearer the creche... snatched child, walked around for a bit to see if challenged, then vanished :-\
The other thing that doesn't quite fit is when Matt Oldfield returns to the table and says 'Everything's ok'... first impression might have looked that way, but he wouldn't have known whether the window or shutter was closed or open beforehand :-\ he might have simply stuck his head into the apartment, heard toddler sleeping noises, shut the door and gone to check on his kids, and not actually seen the children. I doubt that three sleeping children would make much more noise than two...
Obviously he'd swear until blue (as would anyone in his shoes imho) that all three kids were there, that the door was ajar, the shutter, window and curtains were all closed and bolted, but only he knows what he did or didn't see or do that night.
Directly involved or not, the McCanns really don't interview well :-X
-
Despite everyone's conjecture, and an apparent dislike of the parents, we are talking about a little girl who may well have met a horrible death here.
Terribly sad, but ultimately very likely :'(
-
Have just watched it, and it quite clearly shows the man and child walking away from the apartment, yet when he came forward he was heading back from the creche, which is most contradictory :-\
The next sighting being 45 minutes later a couple of blocks away, yet still no nearer the creche... snatched child, walked around for a bit to see if challenged, then vanished :-\
The other thing that doesn't quite fit is when Matt Oldfield returns to the table and says 'Everything's ok'... first impression might have looked that way, but he wouldn't have known whether the window or shutter was closed or open beforehand :-\ he might have simply stuck his head into the apartment, heard toddler sleeping noises, shut the door and gone to check on his kids, and not actually seen the children. I doubt that three sleeping children would make much more noise than two...
Obviously he'd swear until blue (as would anyone in his shoes imho) that all three kids were there, that the door was ajar, the shutter, window and curtains were all closed and bolted, but only he knows what he did or didn't see or do that night.
Directly involved or not, the McCanns really don't interview well :-X
Thank Christ for that, I'm not going mad. Thankyou Al.
And yes Oldfields involvement gave me the same thoughts. Did he actually see her?
-
I had to watch it twice to get my head around the various details though ::)
Hopefully something positive will come from the whole sorry mess :-\
-
I had to watch it twice to get my head around the various details though ::)
Hopefully something positive will come from the whole sorry mess :-\
Yes so did I. Rewound a couple of times.
The original suspects movements make no sense to me, given the details disclosed.
Maybe the details of his movements where not considered important enough to air? :-\
-
May I make 3 simple points ... ???
1. It was a TV made reconstruction .. based on recollections from a long time ago..... it is not "tablets of stone" delivered on a mountain top....so it is actually a series of "guesses".....if it was totally factual it would actually answer the question ..
2. Many, many parents have done, and will do, similar to what the Mcanns did, we used to leave our kids asleep in the caravan whilst we went to another van to socialise, checking back every 30 minutes or so; when at home we've been next door and popped home to check on them; in the summer they slept in prams in the garden whilst we were indoors; ALL parents leave their children "unattended" at some point - it is impossible to watch them 24/7 -.
3. The Mcanns have been investigated more thoroughly than anyone else and found to be "innocent"
So blaming the Mcanns, whilst a nice simple solution, that might appease your conscience, actually achieves nothing.
-
Re 1.
Quite possibly, but that's all we have, sitting here. Hence my questions :)
-
Re 1.
Quite possibly, but that's all we have, sitting here. Hence my questions :)
It is also based in an eye witness account. Which can be taken either way re accuracy.
-
I havn't seen the Crimewatch episode ( :P ) but I was reading about it on the Beeb's website earlier where they included an aerial photo of the area. I was always under the impression that the restaurant was right next to the apartments, (which still wouldn't have made it OK to leave kids alone) but it's a fair distance between the two places!! :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24526934
-
Looking at the satellite view of the area, the creche actually makes a convincing alibi :-\
If the abductor was stopped heading towards it, then they could reasonably claim to be taking the child there having found them wandering in the road, and equally later walking away could claim to have just collected the child from the creche :-\
Walking east from the apartment for at least a block would also have helped to prevent being spotted from the pool area :-\
I have a horrible feeling that she was targeted. Possibly lightly drugged in the afternoon... cold drink from the poolside bar... put to bed looking washed out... slept like a baby (such an oxymoron ::)) and taken from the apartment at about quarter past nine.
If the axe falls, there will be more than one head under it...
-
I havn't seen the Crimewatch episode ( :P ) but I was reading about it on the Beeb's website earlier where they included an aerial photo of the area. I was always under the impression that the restaurant was right next to the apartments, (which still wouldn't have made it OK to leave kids alone) but it's a fair distance between the two places!! :o
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24526934
Its south of the swimming pool.
Pic also shows the crèche location, which the original suspect was walking towards from the corner of the street, north of the apartment, from under the trees as I understand it.
(http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p326/chrisgixer/9d5d127ad6b9fe9d9473e10b3adef5d0_zpsa4f78dd3.jpg)
-
I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. :y
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
I'm especially surprised at you tbh.
EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.
At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" ???
Everything previous to be ignored, is it? Re-assess based on a televised reconstruction with the family and broadcasters full cooperation?
By no means wanting to appear controvertial - though undoubtedly I will in some eyes - I find that concept to be quite nieve.
All the original, live, as it happens, media grabbing TV with all the statements and body language etc from the family to be instantly deleted from the memory of everyone, just as per the flashy gizmo from men in black, and thereafter reapply 'logic' based on a telly programme?
No thank you....
Yes, I feel and fear for the health of the wee lassie.
I'm not an expert but I have learned a little smattering of body language and word use from 'witnesses' over the years and....
as said in my original statement,
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
And, as another phrase goes, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. :)
-
Again, re orientation of the map I'm calling the top of the map north. For ease of explanation. I don't actually know which way is North, although the description of the second suspect "...to the South" would seem to confirm same.
Second suspect siting. "To the South" which seems a better escape for a planned kidnap, given the waste ground to the west at the end of the Mcanns street.
Again. The 9,15 siting was travelling towards the east. This map shows that location better.
(http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p326/chrisgixer/5ba50ea44885451407aa2c377d0c3fe3_zps2b38ba6e.jpg)
-
I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. :y
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
I'm especially surprised at you tbh.
EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.
At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" ???
Everything previous to be ignored, is it? Re-assess based on a televised reconstruction with the family and broadcasters full cooperation?
By no means wanting to appear controvertial - though undoubtedly I will in some eyes - I find that concept to be quite nieve.
All the original, live, as it happens, media grabbing TV with all the statements and body language etc from the family to be instantly deleted from the memory of everyone, just as per the flashy gizmo from men in black, and thereafter reapply 'logic' based on a telly programme?
No thank you....
Yes, I feel and fear for the health of the wee lassie.
I'm not an expert but I have learned a little smattering of body language and word use from 'witnesses' over the years and....
as said in my original statement,
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
And, as another phrase goes, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. :)
In the context of the programme. And in the context of this thread, as the questions in post 1...
Yes! Absolutely it is. Yes. Yes and thrice yes. Precisely because everyone had an opinion, is exactly why we where asked to start again. Which is exactly what the NEW investigation has had to do.
Hence, based on the contents of that programme, and that alone, I am asking you to concider post no.1 of this thread. Please. :)
-
I would also mention, the title of the thread.
Crimewatch. (Not "The Mcanns" )
-
I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. :y
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
I'm especially surprised at you tbh.
EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.
At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" ???
Everything previous to be ignored, is it? Re-assess based on a televised reconstruction with the family and broadcasters full cooperation?
By no means wanting to appear controvertial - though undoubtedly I will in some eyes - I find that concept to be quite nieve.
All the original, live, as it happens, media grabbing TV with all the statements and body language etc from the family to be instantly deleted from the memory of everyone, just as per the flashy gizmo from men in black, and thereafter reapply 'logic' based on a telly programme?
No thank you....
Yes, I feel and fear for the health of the wee lassie.
I'm not an expert but I have learned a little smattering of body language and word use from 'witnesses' over the years and....
as said in my original statement,
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
And, as another phrase goes, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. :)
In the context of the programme. And in the context of this thread, as the questions in post 1...
Yes! Absolutely it is. Yes. Yes and thrice yes. Precisely because everyone had an opinion, is exactly why we where asked to start again. Which is exactly what the NEW investigation has had to do.
Hence, based on the contents of that programme, and that alone, I am asking you to concider post no.1 of this thread. Please. :)
No.
I would much rather wade through a typewritten transcript of an extended trial than have my opinion influenced by a television company and parents who have had their views on facts deviated by time, circumstance, and a learning curve steered by a background media entourage looking after family interests based and on later interpretation and conjecture.
Yes, new evidence to light and all that but I would much rather read and understand same through as honest and third party a perspective as possible. And that excludes a telly programme, sadly.
-
I personally felt the majority of the programme (and reconstruction) was to say "Hey, leaving the kids alone was not a bad thing...... look, these other couples did the same".
What I found ambiguous was the 'checking' on the McCanns children by their friend. For those who didn't see the programme, a friend of the McCanns checked on the children 30 minutes prior to Kate. It was not shown or reported whether or not that woman opened the bedroom door and looked at the children or whether she just listened out for noise (crying etc).
The 'Timeline' is much wider than the Police let us believe if you ask me......... unless they do have more knowledge than they are letting on?
-
I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. :y
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
I'm especially surprised at you tbh.
EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.
At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" ???
Everything previous to be ignored, is it? Re-assess based on a televised reconstruction with the family and broadcasters full cooperation?
By no means wanting to appear controvertial - though undoubtedly I will in some eyes - I find that concept to be quite nieve.
All the original, live, as it happens, media grabbing TV with all the statements and body language etc from the family to be instantly deleted from the memory of everyone, just as per the flashy gizmo from men in black, and thereafter reapply 'logic' based on a telly programme?
No thank you....
Yes, I feel and fear for the health of the wee lassie.
I'm not an expert but I have learned a little smattering of body language and word use from 'witnesses' over the years and....
as said in my original statement,
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
And, as another phrase goes, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. :)
In the context of the programme. And in the context of this thread, as the questions in post 1...
Yes! Absolutely it is. Yes. Yes and thrice yes. Precisely because everyone had an opinion, is exactly why we where asked to start again. Which is exactly what the NEW investigation has had to do.
Hence, based on the contents of that programme, and that alone, I am asking you to concider post no.1 of this thread. Please. :)
And I have absolutely no doubt that any beak worth their position will verbally expulge any televisualised thoughts from a jurys mind in the opening remarks for the trial which will hopefully take place.
And, in the words of the dragons, I'm now out. :-X
-
I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. :y
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
I'm especially surprised at you tbh.
EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.
At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" ???
Everything previous to be ignored, is it? Re-assess based on a televised reconstruction with the family and broadcasters full cooperation?
By no means wanting to appear controvertial - though undoubtedly I will in some eyes - I find that concept to be quite nieve.
All the original, live, as it happens, media grabbing TV with all the statements and body language etc from the family to be instantly deleted from the memory of everyone, just as per the flashy gizmo from men in black, and thereafter reapply 'logic' based on a telly programme?
No thank you....
Yes, I feel and fear for the health of the wee lassie.
I'm not an expert but I have learned a little smattering of body language and word use from 'witnesses' over the years and....
as said in my original statement,
My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind...... :-X
And, as another phrase goes, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. :)
In the context of the programme. And in the context of this thread, as the questions in post 1...
Yes! Absolutely it is. Yes. Yes and thrice yes. Precisely because everyone had an opinion, is exactly why we where asked to start again. Which is exactly what the NEW investigation has had to do.
Hence, based on the contents of that programme, and that alone, I am asking you to concider post no.1 of this thread. Please. :)
No.
I would much rather wade through a typewritten transcript of an extended trial than have my opinion influenced by a television company and parents who have had their views on facts deviated by time, circumstance, and a learning curve steered by a background media entourage looking after family interests based and on later interpretation and conjecture.
Yes, new evidence to light and all that but I would much rather read and understand same through as honest and third party a perspective as possible. And that excludes a telly programme, sadly.
In that case, I don't understand. Why post at all? I know its Gen Dis and all that, so fair do's but the title is clear, the questions seem specific to the programme, yet we're all babbling on about the guilt, or otherwise, of the patents? Without the slightest concern, it seems, for the child.
Maybe we think the detectives naive? These are The a Mets. elite detectives, the yards finest. We're told.
Personally I don't give a rats rear end who did it. Just get that poor child back. No?
-
....
And I have absolutely no doubt that any beak worth their position will verbally expulge any televisualised thoughts from a jurys mind in .....
I assume that's a bit like expunge ::) ::) ::)
-
On the satellite image north is up. The waste ground you mention, or at least getting to it from the front of the apartment building would involve passing several openings from the pool area, with a good chance of being seen, similarly the road to the east is as exposed. If some one wanted to get from the first sighting to the second without being spotted from the pool area (perceived risk) they would head north east for a block or two, the turn south, down the side of the creche, turning right onto the road that leads south west from the creche to the town and the second sighting...
All that said, wtf would anyone walk? Out of the apartment, straight into a car and gone. By the time the alarm was raised, could be nearly at the Spanish border :-\
Perhaps the McCanns guilt stems simply from knowing that they could have done things differently, but they did seem quite relieved at the 'new' evidence, him especially :-\
-
Also, re explurging (sorry ;D ) from the judge. That's precisely what the detectives are asking re previous bs, or otherwise, from prior to the new investigation.
A clean slate. Seems reasonable from their point of view.
-
The Macanns guilt stems from leaving the children in the first place, it seems to me.
But I've deliberately paid little attention to the Portuguese investigation tbh. I have no idea why they where considered suspects, in the full sense of the word.
My attention and questions stem purely from the programme yesterday. :)
-
Just get that poor child back. No?
A noble sentiment shared by everyone, I'm sure, but sadly I fear the most likely conclusion is that the police establish what happened to her and hopefully bring the guilty party/parties to book :-\
The only problem with the clean slate approach is that they are forced to base their investigation on the original evidence :-\
On the plus side, they obviously found enough potential within that evidence to reopen the investigation, and they're obviously looking for something to warrant the broadcast. The gaping holes in the reconstruction are as likely to be deliberate as they might be sloppy directing :-\
You only get shown that which the person showing wants you to see...
-
The sentiment I'm seeing in response to my questions about the programme from others though, is, the Mcanns where negligent. So why bother? Yes I know there's little anyone can do, but that doesn't mean nobody should try.
Prior to the uk investigation, the Portuguese investigation has been rather rediculous it seems to me. And I see in the news tonight the Portuguese are still claiming a fair job.
-
The Macanns guilt stems from leaving the children in the first place, it seems to me.
Quite possibly :-\
I have no idea why they where considered suspects, in the full sense of the word.
Pretty standard practice, especially given the lack of immediate evidence and their (the McCanns) protestations. They are/were as likely to have been involved as any other potential suspect, including everyone else at their dinner table...
My attention and questions stem purely from the programme yesterday. :)
Perfectly reasonable, but note the last sentence of my previous post :y
-
The Macanns guilt stems from leaving the children in the first place, it seems to me.
Quite possibly :-\
I have no idea why they where considered suspects, in the full sense of the word.
Pretty standard practice, especially given the lack of immediate evidence and their (the McCanns) protestations. They are/were as likely to have been involved as any other potential suspect, including everyone else at their dinner table...
My attention and questions stem purely from the programme yesterday. :)
Perfectly reasonable, but note the last sentence of my previous post :y
Noted, indeed. I'm not "taken in" by it either, as suggested earlier elsewhere. I am questioning it, so quite the opposite.
-
I vaguely recall at the time, reports of paedophile rings operating throught Portugal and beyond. Perhaps, to the local Police, it was an all to common occurrence, and they treated it like they would any other missing child case :-\
Lets say you're a local Police Chief, and every Friday a local person is murdered with no motive and no evidence. Then one Friday, a tourist rather than a local is shot, no obvious motive, or evidence.
Because it's a Friday, you treat it as a normal routine Friday murder, no leads, no suspicion, but suddenly the relatives of the tourist insist that not enough is being done to catch the murderer, politics get involved, and of course the media...
You have to do something, so you wind up going through the motions for a quiet life, and a year later, you're no nearer a result so you close the case, and deep down you suspect that it was simply another regular Friday murder. :-\
I suspect that is where the Portuguese Police got to...
-
Here is my opinion.
Mrs M has always appeared 'lacking in confidence' and 'acting as if something to hide', on crimewatch this was coming over in spades.
Mr M I dont trust, he has an air of 'snideness' about him which again was very very evident on the program.
There is much more to this than meets the eye.
-
Here is my opinion.
Mrs M has always appeared 'lacking in confidence' and 'acting as if something to hide', on crimewatch this was coming over in spades.
Mr M I dont trust, he has an air of 'snideness' about him which again was very very evident on the program.
There is much more to this than meets the eye.
Maybe so. But any thoughts on post no. 1?
-
A lot of assumptions.....one being that the person who came forward is indeed that person and not somebody who thinks he was that person....
-
A lot of assumptions.....one being that the person who came forward is indeed that person and not somebody who thinks he was that person....
Yes. And these are the "Elite detectives"....on the evidence in the programme, they say they are 99% certain of the identity of the 9.15 siting. This then allows them to move in to the second siting. :o
Why not investigate the second siting anyway? And indeed all sittings, if any more. Until all are eliminated or the child found. Preferably the later first obviously.
-
As for the poor child, who was very young at the time, if she was snatched to order, I think there is a liklihood that she is having a comfortable upbringing with loving "parents" (based on the fact that whoever paid the abducters would have to have a fair wad of cash, and so desperately wanted a child that they would love and care for her).
Obviously, that doesn't make any of it right, but should she now have to also go through the turmoil of being seperated from the only "parents" she remembers, and have her life torn apart. Again. Obviously, if she was snatched for the pleasure of some deviant, then she is already in a better place.
As to what has been said previously to this specific episode of Crimewatch being discarded, thats absolutely daft. The most important evidence is that gained immediately after the event, not what people say 7 years later.
-
I did watch the program ,and a couple of things puzzled me.
1. Was the apartment actually locked ? I don't recall any mention of this.
2.the shutters appear to be operated from the inside,if so were they damaged from the outside to be opened?
3. If apartment was locked ,did Friend who offered to "check" actually go in or stand outside and listen? he said " all seems quiet or words to that effect. Was the shutter /window open at that point?
4. Presuming the doors were locked whoever took the girl seems to have gone in through the window somehow after opening the shutter and I presume gone out the same way carrying her(no mean feat).
Or the door was left unlocked!
-
I did watch the program ,and a couple of things puzzled me.
1. Was the apartment actually locked ? I don't recall any mention of this.
2.the shutters appear to be operated from the inside,if so were they damaged from the outside to be opened?
3. If apartment was locked ,did Friend who offered to "check" actually go in or stand outside and listen? he said " all seems quiet or words to that effect. Was the shutter /window open at that point?
4. Presuming the doors were locked whoever took the girl seems to have gone in through the window somehow after opening the shutter and I presume gone out the same way carrying her(no mean feat).
Or the door was left unlocked!
RE no 4
I would have thought a 3 year old woken by a stranger would have screamed the house down,unless it was someone she knew ???
-
I did watch the program ,and a couple of things puzzled me.
1. Was the apartment actually locked ? I don't recall any mention of this.
2.the shutters appear to be operated from the inside,if so were they damaged from the outside to be opened?
3. If apartment was locked ,did Friend who offered to "check" actually go in or stand outside and listen? he said " all seems quiet or words to that effect. Was the shutter /window open at that point?
4. Presuming the doors were locked whoever took the girl seems to have gone in through the window somehow after opening the shutter and I presume gone out the same way carrying her(no mean feat).
Or the door was left unlocked!
RE no 4
I would have thought a 3 year old woken by a stranger would have screamed the house down,unless it was someone she knew ???
If kidnapped to order, was she sedated?
While its good to see we're finally moving away from pure conjecture, and on to something allegedly more factual, the only way forward is to focus on the "who" rather than the "how". It seems to me? :-\
A process of elimination of possible suspects is all there is. Afaict.
-
As for the poor child, who was very young at the time, if she was snatched to order, I think there is a liklihood that she is having a comfortable upbringing with loving "parents" (based on the fact that whoever paid the abducters would have to have a fair wad of cash, and so desperately wanted a child that they would love and care for her).
Obviously, that doesn't make any of it right, but should she now have to also go through the turmoil of being seperated from the only "parents" she remembers, and have her life torn apart. Again. Obviously, if she was snatched for the pleasure of some deviant, then she is already in a better place.
As to what has been said previously to this specific episode of Crimewatch being discarded, thats absolutely daft. The most important evidence is that gained immediately after the event, not what people say 7 years later.
Again, you've not seen the programme. Slating the Mcanns, while that may or may not be justified, is NOT the subject of the programme, or this thread and the questions on post 1.
It's quite an easy path to walk down, yet you blatantly refuse to do so. ;D
Feel free to start a thread on the Mcanns behaviour of course, if may be so bold. But can I ask you to pay at least some attention to the contents of the Crimewatch programme ?
-
As for the poor child, who was very young at the time, if she was snatched to order, I think there is a liklihood that she is having a comfortable upbringing with loving "parents" (based on the fact that whoever paid the abducters would have to have a fair wad of cash, and so desperately wanted a child that they would love and care for her).
Obviously, that doesn't make any of it right, but should she now have to also go through the turmoil of being seperated from the only "parents" she remembers, and have her life torn apart. Again. Obviously, if she was snatched for the pleasure of some deviant, then she is already in a better place.
As to what has been said previously to this specific episode of Crimewatch being discarded, thats absolutely daft. The most important evidence is that gained immediately after the event, not what people say 7 years later.
Again, you've not seen the programme. Slating the Mcanns, while that may or may not be justified, is NOT the subject of the programme, or this thread and the questions on post 1.
It's quite an easy path to walk down, yet you blatantly refuse to do so. ;D
Feel free to start a thread on the Mcanns behaviour of course, if may be so bold. But can I ask you to pay at least some attention to the contents of the Crimewatch programme ?
WTF have you been smoking, I need it. Lots of it. ;D
Nowhere in that post did I mention how badly the parents acted ???. It was simply a PoV that brings forward a question of how she would feel if she was found.
However, as you've brought it up, you'll find that when it happened, I was uncomfortable with the interviews that the parents were giving, and story changing and suspicious body language haven't done much to help. It may, of course, be just the guilt of leaving her alone, but other forms of guilt need to be explored. And not by a media outlet!
How can you hold a discussion on such a subject, yet only allow what was said on a single TV entertainment programme, more interested in ratings than true facts, made seven years after the event, and wash all the over evidence that has been gathered under the carpet? That seems incredibly narrow minded to my simple mind :-\
Anyway, nothing more to say on this thread unless it broadens to include all facts, not just what sensations the beed can hype up.
-
Who's the beed, Jaime? ;D ;D
-
As for the poor child, who was very young at the time, if she was snatched to order, I think there is a liklihood that she is having a comfortable upbringing with loving "parents" (based on the fact that whoever paid the abducters would have to have a fair wad of cash, and so desperately wanted a child that they would love and care for her).
Obviously, that doesn't make any of it right, but should she now have to also go through the turmoil of being seperated from the only "parents" she remembers, and have her life torn apart. Again. Obviously, if she was snatched for the pleasure of some deviant, then she is already in a better place.
As to what has been said previously to this specific episode of Crimewatch being discarded, thats absolutely daft. The most important evidence is that gained immediately after the event, not what people say 7 years later.
Again, you've not seen the programme. Slating the Mcanns, while that may or may not be justified, is NOT the subject of the programme, or this thread and the questions on post 1.
It's quite an easy path to walk down, yet you blatantly refuse to do so. ;D
Feel free to start a thread on the Mcanns behaviour of course, if may be so bold. But can I ask you to pay at least some attention to the contents of the Crimewatch programme ?
WTF have you been smoking, I need it. Lots of it. ;D
Nowhere in that post did I mention how badly the parents acted ???. It was simply a PoV that brings forward a question of how she would feel if she was found.
However, as you've brought it up, you'll find that when it happened, I was uncomfortable with the interviews that the parents were giving, and story changing and suspicious body language haven't done much to help. It may, of course, be just the guilt of leaving her alone, but other forms of guilt need to be explored. And not by a media outlet!
How can you hold a discussion on such a subject, yet only allow what was said on a single TV entertainment programme, more interested in ratings than true facts, made seven years after the event, and wash all the over evidence that has been gathered under the carpet? That seems incredibly narrow minded to my simple mind :-\
Anyway, nothing more to say on this thread unless it broadens to include all facts, not just what sensations the beed can hype up.
Jamie, watch the facts as presented in the programme.(or not)
Then consider post 1.(or not, as you wish)
Its easy. It really is.
That's all I'm asking.
-
As I'm on the phone, excuse not quoting directly, but in respones to Reply 79 :-\ have a reread of Replies 53,64 and 67 :y
I think that it is highly likely that Madelines disappearance was not unexpected, even if the reality of it happening was/is a bitter pill for the McCanns to swallow :-\
As for the poor child, who was very young at the time, if she was snatched to order, I think there is a liklihood that she is having a comfortable upbringing with loving "parents" (based on the fact that whoever paid the abducters would have to have a fair wad of cash, and so desperately wanted a child that they would love and care for her).
Obviously, that doesn't make any of it right, but should she now have to also go through the turmoil of being seperated from the only "parents" she remembers, and have her life torn apart. Again. Obviously, if she was snatched for the pleasure of some deviant, then she is already in a better place.
We can only hope and pray it was the former :-\
-
As I said earlier. That's unlikely unfortunately. If it were a case of "stolen to order" they would almost certainly hve taken one or both of he babies,as the new "parents" would find it much easier to pass them off as their own.
-
However likely or unlikely, however its was done or by whom, all answers will come from finding the kidnapper, and hence the child.
It was effectively, a public space. Infuriatingly, anyone could come and go as they pleased. But;
She was taken
By someone
And that someone needs to be found
In order to find the child
Anything else is irrelevant conjecture.
-
...hence the Crimewatch programme.
Hence the questions I've asked. :)
-
That being...
Why would the original suspect siting at 9.15 carry his or anyone else's child back towards the crèche, when he said he'd just picked the child up from there?
Its a minor detail now in the face of a wave of mistrust(?) in the Parents. But that's all i was really concerned with. :(
It just seemed odd to me. And to Al. Anyone else? :)
-
Has anyone got a rope I could borrow?
-
Has anyone got a rope I could borrow?
Get your own with the Mail on Sunday.
-
But your right Esta, the point is completely lost now. ::)
-
For anyone not completely sick of this, sky have jumped on the bandwagon. Friday, 7:30.
-
For anyone not completely sick of this, sky have jumped on the bandwagon. Friday, 7:30.
Well lets make sure we all watch it and then we can have a proper debate!! ::)
Oh wait.... I live in a cave... :( ;) ;D
-
No matter, you can watch it online :y
-
No matter, you can watch it online :y
He has internet in his cave? Sounds neat. Can anyone apply for one?
-
Only if you can Bounce, Bounce, Bounce ;D
-
Only if you can Bounce, Bounce, Bounce ;D
;D
-
No matter, you can watch it online :y
Didn't know there was a Sky-player. :-\ ::) ;)
-
I'm with H21 (I agree with his statements).
But my answer to your question / my interpretation of your question, 'Why would anyone walk back to the crèche with a 'kidnapped' child' would be 'Because they were meeting someone / the purchaser of the child'
I apologise if I misinterpreted your question.
-
Good grief. It won't be long before aliens are introduced into this.
-
That's it!!!!! It was staring us in the face....aliens. Yeeees!
-
That's it!!!!! It was staring us in the face....aliens. Yeeees!
NUURSE he's out of bed again.... ;D
-
That's it!!!!! It was staring us in the face....aliens. Yeeees!
NUURSE he's out of bed again.... ;D
I could be in bed, fiddling with my tablet. :P
-
Re: CrimewatchVXL V6 link=topic=118597.msg1504715#msg1504715 date=1381954923]
I'm with H21 (I agree with his statements).
But my answer to your question / my interpretation of your question, 'Why would anyone walk back to the crèche with a 'kidnapped' child' would be 'Because they were meeting someone / the purchaser of the child'
I apologise if I misinterpreted your question.
[/quote]
Walking a circuitous route, near the creche would be a good cover for several reasons
If stopped, the kidnapper could argue that they had found the child in the street, and knowing the area and the existence of the creche were taking said lost child to the creche whilst the parents were located.
It wasn't so late that going to the creche would seem too odd.
Walking back from the creche towards town and the second sighting would also raise few questions, again if stopped, just collected my child from the creche, our appartment is just down here.
The circuitous route also reduces being spotted from the pool area, or by anyone checking their own kids.
BUT
What really makes no sense is why walk halfway around a holiday resort at dinnertime whilst carrying someone elses kid. That's just too retarded, to even be plausible...especially seeing as it must have been organised.
Even if it was a burglary gone wrong, chancing one (that exact apartment is beyond coincidental), they would have had a vehicle outside ready to go :-\
-
That's it!!!!! It was staring us in the face....aliens. Yeeees!
NUURSE he's out of bed again.... ;D
I could be in bed, fiddling with my tablet. :P
Too much information :o
-
That's it!!!!! It was staring us in the face....aliens. Yeeees!
NUURSE he's out of bed again.... ;D
I could be in bed, fiddling with my tablet. :P
Too much information :o
He could be in your bed fiddling with any available tablet, now there is a thought........... :D :D ;)