Madeleine Mccann Missing Girl

[Alternative Title]

On 24/06/2019 at 09:06, Dee Man said:

I've heard some conspiracy theories in my time but that is a belter.

Care to explain the presence of MI5, the British Ambassador (not Consul) and the Givernment dispatching Clarence "The Fireman" Mitchell to manage media relations. Not to mention Broon toeing his colours to the mast early on, only to scarper when it became obvious he'd backed a couple of wrong 'uns ?

[throbber]

Everything points to an accidental overdose by her doctor parents. The two c***s have looked dodgy as hell from day one
 

Apart from there is absolutely zero evidence that points to accidental overdose, you are just assuming this happened because they are doctors so they would obviously bring a travel pharmacy on Holliday with them so they could drug their children if they weren’t sleeping well. It’s actually frightening that people make this conclusion about the case.

You also can’t just say you think it was the parents because they come across a little shifty.

[Alternative Title]

1 hour ago, throbber said:

 

Apart from there is absolutely zero evidence that points to accidental overdose, you are just assuming this happened because they are doctors so they would obviously bring a travel pharmacy on Holliday with them so they could drug their children if they weren’t sleeping well. It’s actually frightening that people make this conclusion about the case.

You also can’t just say you think it was the parents because they come across a little shifty.

Well, Kate said she thought the kids had been drugged, although she didn't think it worthwhile getting them checked for some reason.

It was noted that both twins were unresponsive throughout all the coming and going.

Of course had she had them checked we would know for certain .

Just one thing. Why would a trained anaesthust not be worried about their children being unresponsive (Glasgow Coma Scale 15) and find out why as a matter of urgency?

Either she knew what they had ingested, and that's a matter for the police; or, she and the other doctors in the party are guilty of incompetence, and that's a matter for the GMC.

Remember, the reason they were all so cold and collected was "because of their medical training."

By the way, one packet of Diazepam hardly constitutes a travelling pharmacy. It's frightening the way people are prepared to distort facts, rather than look at the glaring evidence in front of them.

It's almost as if you are members of some crazy religious sect that expects you to accept all you are told without question.

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Alternative Title

[GordonD]

17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I think that most normal people are quite happy to believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Like Fred West?

[Alternative Title]

18 minutes ago, GordonD said:

Like Fred West?

Or Dr. Harold Shipman?

35 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I think that most normal people are quite happy to believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Although they do ask for peer reviewed research when it suits their agenda of rubbishing things they don't want to hear.

Who said anything about guilt? Edit: your mate said there was no evidence that the kids were drugged, and I put you straight in my first sentence.
However if you are happy that they continue to enjoy their liberty without these pertinent questions being answered, you are welcome to what you think is normality.

When, faced with incontestable evidence the usual McCann tactic is to question the sanity or morality of the person delivering it. You are definitely on message with that, but black marks for not realising that Kate had admitted in her book "madeleine" that she thought the kids were drugged.

While you are here, would you mind telling me how the abductor managed to drug the children, and get out of  a window that is not large enough for a man to get through, without leaving any forensic trace?

If arrested, I take it he will be innocent until proved guilty also. As, there is a cast iron defence built up, which would implicate the parents.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Alternative Title

[Priti priti priti Patel]

17 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

academic research on the subject is available here, and is a useful starting off point: https://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/Simon Newbery_tcm44-19866.pdf

A university named after a dog. Hardly reliable. 

[GordonD]

11 minutes ago, Alternative Title said:

Or Dr. Harold Shipman?

No, Shipman was found guilty. Fred West did himself in before the trial so according to oaksoft he's innocent.

[throbber]

It's almost as if you are members of some crazy religious sect that expects you to accept all you are told without question.
 

Give us a reasonable hypotheses as to what happened that evening then based on your extensive knowledge on the subject then hot shot.

[Dons_1988]

Always strikes me that people don't understand the term 'evidence' in this stuff.

Fair enough hypothesise what happened but why on earth people feel it appropriate to aggressively argue what they think happened as fact is mental.

[throbber]

Fair enough hypothesise what happened but why on earth people feel it appropriate to aggressively argue what they think happened as fact is mental.

Why? The main reason I don’t think the Mcanns killed her is because of the time frame from when Maddie was last seen to when Gerry was our playing tennis and then returning to their apartment. Maddie was last seen at 1730 and then put to bed at 7 then the parents were at the Tapas restaurant for 8 and the alarm was raised that she was gone at 930 ish, so when did they kill and dispose of her body? They let someone into their apartment to check on their kids so would they do that knowing she was dead and risk being caught? Did they just hire a car out there a month after the abduction and go and find her body and dispose of it in a final resting place safe in the knowledge that nobody was following them when it was probably the highest profile criminal case in Europe at the time? Why is there no more evidence other than a couple of dogs barking?

[Dons_1988]

Why? The main reason I don’t think the Mcanns killed her is because of the time frame from when Maddie was last seen to when Gerry was our playing tennis and then returning to their apartment. Maddie was last seen at 1730 and then put to bed at 7 then the parents were at the Tapas restaurant for 8 and the alarm was raised that she was gone at 930 ish, so when did they kill and dispose of her body? They let someone into their apartment to check on their kids so would they do that knowing she was dead and risk being caught? Did they just hire a car out there a month after the abduction and go and find her body and dispose of it in a final resting place safe in the knowledge that nobody was following them when it was probably the highest profile criminal case in Europe at the time? Why is there no more evidence other than a couple of dogs barking?

You may have misunderstood me.

I’m saying I have no idea what happened and people don’t ‘know’ what happened. As I said, hypotheses are absolutely fine as you’ve just outlined above.

My issue is people arguing with certainty that they know better than the army of people that have been working on this case for years.

Nobody knows what happened really.

[Jacksgranda]

34 minutes ago, throbber said:

 

Why? The main reason I don’t think the Mcanns killed her is because of the time frame from when Maddie was last seen to when Gerry was our playing tennis and then returning to their apartment. Maddie was last seen at 1730 and then put to bed at 7 then the parents were at the Tapas restaurant for 8 and the alarm was raised that she was gone at 930 ish, so when did they kill and dispose of her body? They let someone into their apartment to check on their kids so would they do that knowing she was dead and risk being caught? Did they just hire a car out there a month after the abduction and go and find her body and dispose of it in a final resting place safe in the knowledge that nobody was following them when it was probably the highest profile criminal case in Europe at the time? Why is there no more evidence other than a couple of dogs barking?

 

Says who?

[nsr]

The parents seem to be clearly dodgy. Whether that means they deliberately or accidentally harmed her, I can't be sure, but it seems odd otherwise.

[Alternative Title]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

You may have misunderstood me.

I’m saying I have no idea what happened and people don’t ‘know’ what happened. As I said, hypotheses are absolutely fine as you’ve just outlined above.

My issue is people arguing with certainty that they know better than the army of people that have been working on this case for years.

Nobody knows what happened really.

 

With respect, there is no army of people, Operation Grange is down to two people, they have been at the job for seven years and have yet to come up with anything.
At least one person knows what happened, it's a case of identifying them.

I tend to follow the hypothesis of Goncalo Amaral who was the chief investigating officer on the case. I think he is as much an expert as a bunch of plods from the Met on a busman's holiday.

There's a link to the book below, and he explains why he believes that the child died by accident, and this was covered up by her parents. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts and any flaws you can see in his argument.

2 hours ago, Margaret Thatcher said:

A university named after a dog. Hardly reliable. 

I agree, but I think the dog was named after the University. I provided better links lower down just in case.

2 hours ago, GordonD said:

No, Shipman was found guilty. Fred West did himself in before the trial so according to oaksoft he's innocent.

OK, all the other doctors that have killed people, but never faced trial then?

2 hours ago, throbber said:

 

Give us a reasonable hypotheses as to what happened that evening then based on your extensive knowledge on the subject then hot shot.

 

No need for the hot shot jibe, you were the guy that said there was absolutely no evidence of poisoning - you said it with the certainty of, well, a hot shot on the case. I merely offered up information to save you the embarassment of repeating your mistake in future, namely that the girl's mother, a trained anaesthetist (sp?) thought the kids had been drugged.

The best hypothesis I can offer you is the book by Goncalo Amaral, The Truth of the Lie, which is based on the extensive documentation released by the Policial Judicial in 2008. as well as his own recollections of the case, and a reflection on the way it was handled by the British Media.

McScam tried to do him for libel, but the Portuguese Supreme Court found in his favour. Good job, as they had set out to ruin him. The book is available elsewhere in Europe, but English versions are only available online.

http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/

It's easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled.

[Alternative Title]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

Says who?

The McCanns, of course, case closed!
Of course there is more evidence than a couple of dogs barking (see what he did there?)
Dogs who got it right 200 times out of 200 up until then.
Then there is the pesky DNA in the flat and the hire car (result of bodily fluid, consistent with a body defrosting.)
And there is the fact that it took them three attempts to come up with a time line.
And that they refused to co operate with police.
And that they have used the fund to promote their bollocks version of events ever since, repeating lies and suing anybody who dares to question their version of events.

Now, how did the abductor do the deed in a window of less than two minutes again?

Edited August 1, 2019 by Alternative Title

[throbber]

No need for the hot shot jibe, you were the guy that said there was absolutely no evidence of poisoning - you said it with the certainty of, well, a hot shot on the case. I merely offered up information to save you the embarassment of repeating your mistake in future, namely that the girl's mother, a trained anaesthetist (sp?) thought the kids had been drugged.

There is no embarrassment on my part, the poster said that all evidence pointed towards accidental overdose by the parents which i said there was no evidence of. If Kate says in her book that she believes that the kids were poisoned then that isn’t evidence that the parents drugged her and she died of an accidental over dose is it? I’m not reading Amarals book, I’ve watched the documentary before but I’m sure he said he thought she fell behind the couch and died there? If she died of an accident in the apartment then why stage a kidnap?

Also Jacksgranda asked the question of who said Maddie went to her at 7 o clock - but that is a pretty universal time to put kids to bed at, if you were going to drug your kids to sleep would you not want to to that at around bed time? If they overdose on the drug how long would that take to kill the child, an hour maybe? They were at the Tapas bar for 830 so they would have had to have both decided to go ahead with the kidnap story pretty quickly, then hide the body somewhere no one would find it for about a month without being caught and then go to dinner without any of their friends noticing any sort of odd behaviour from a couple who had just killed and disposed of their first born child when on holiday because they, as doctors, manager to f**k up the dosage.

[Alternative Title]

34 minutes ago, throbber said:

 

There is no embarrassment on my part, the poster said that all evidence pointed towards accidental overdose by the parents which i said there was no evidence of. If Kate says in her book that she believes that the kids were poisoned then that isn’t evidence that the parents drugged her and she died of an accidental over dose is it? I’m not reading Amarals book, I’ve watched the documentary before but I’m sure he said he thought she fell behind the couch and died there? If she died of an accident in the apartment then why stage a kidnap?

Also Jacksgranda asked the question of who said Maddie went to her at 7 o clock - but that is a pretty universal time to put kids to bed at, if you were going to drug your kids to sleep would you not want to to that at around bed time? If they overdose on the drug how long would that take to kill the child, an hour maybe? They were at the Tapas bar for 830 so they would have had to have both decided to go ahead with the kidnap story pretty quickly, then hide the body somewhere no one would find it for about a month without being caught and then go to dinner without any of their friends noticing any sort of odd behaviour from a couple who had just killed and disposed of their first born child when on holiday because they, as doctors, manager to f**k up the dosage.

 

Ok, I thought you said there was absolutely no evidence of drugging, sorry.

I suppose the motivation for staging a kidnap would be to save their reputation and a possible prison sentence? You'd have to ask them.

I am not a doctor, and I am not one of the McCanns, I can't tell you how or when you would give drugs. Bear in mind the last sighting of Madeleine was at 5:30. That gives four and a half hours for different scenarios to develop.

Regarding cause of death, it's suggested she fell off the sofa, banged her head, and possibly died of a haemorrhage, causing minimal bleeding out of the ear.

This is based on the splatter pattern on the wall, and blood underneath a floor tile.

Other than that you are just mocking, and accepting their version of events without question.

It might help you if you learned more about high functioning psychopaths, then you could see if they fit the bill.

Meantime, can you tell me how the abductor managed to do the deed?

(I can guess which points you will respond to.)

Edited August 1, 2019 by Alternative Title

[throbber]

Nah I assumed you were using the fact Kate said she believed the kids had been drugged as evidence of their parents drugging them to sleep although I could have been clearer in my response.

Staging a kidnap with all the changes of being caught would be far more damaging to their reputation of course though, in the event of an accident there would have been very few circumstances in which she would be stone dead without a chance of help if they just called an ambulance and even then, an accident wouldn’t result in them serving any jail time anyway.

Yes the last sighting of Maddie was at 530 but Gerry never returned from playing tennis 630-7 and in fact asked someone to go in and check in on Kate and the kids at that time to see if they were okay so he wouldn’t have known if anything f was wrong until about 90 minutes before he was seen at tapas which is a very short time for him to cover the entire thing up is it not?

I’m not mocking anyone, I just don’t know how many times I have read people say they believe it’s the parents because of inconsistencies in their story or because they look a bit dodgey throughout their tv appearances without an explanation how they could have disposed of her without anyone finding out. Maybe they are high functioning psychopaths but i still have my doubts.

There are numerous possibilities about an abductor being there, what if there was some collusion with someone watching from a nearby apartment whilst the abduction takes place? What if the abductor had stayed in the apartment previously and had keys cut and walked in the front door?

[welshbairn]

7 hours ago, Alternative Title said:

It's almost as if I am a member of some crazy religious sect that expects me to accept all I am told by Goncalo Amaral without question.

FTFY

[Alternative Title]

25 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

FTFY

Oh dear.