Maddy Mccann

[NANOJAMBO]

9 hours ago, felix said:

Why not ? It was a serious question.

I'm not sitting through hours of her  conspiracy tat. She clearly dislikes the McCanns and thinks they're behind the whole thing - how does she think they got rid of the body in the short timeframe available ?

"She sounds like a nutjob conspiracy theorist......I'm not sitting through hours of her  conspiracy tat."......

 

I'm not an advocate of hers but I'm not sure what you're saying if you haven't listened to her. 

 

"how does she think they got rid of the body in the short timeframe available ?"..........she says a lot more than that but  you haven't listened to her, going by your post. 

 

Maybe someone else on the thread can help you.  

[felix]

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 14:36, NANOJAMBO said:

 If anyone wants to get some interesting views on what may have happened I can recommend 

"Isabelle McFadden on Madeleine McCann" - just search YT. This woman is no nutjob and she doesn't get into all the conspiracy stuff. She is well connected and has uncovered some stuff that isn't in the Portuguese files nor in the public domain. 

 

 

6 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

I'm not an advocate of hers but I'm not sure what you're saying if you haven't listened to her. 

 

 

I thought your first post above, was worth a look .

Isabelle McFadden seems to have spent an inordinate amount of time on YT & Twitter, reporting on and dissecting the police files, whilst  undertaking her own private investigation.

I searched YT as suggested, and spent around 30 minutes (I know) discovering she doesn't think the McCann's reacted as they should, she thinks two dogs barking independently is corroborative evidence and turning an unknown social worker away from your doorstep, the morning after your kid has disappeared -  is odd !  She also thinks Gerry hiring a lawyer ( in a foreign country) is weird.

 

I'm sorry, but had to switch off. The question was genuine. What's her view on what may have happened ?

I'll take a flyer (could be wrong) she thinks (like some other conspiracy nuts) there was an accident, and the parents have disposed of the body, to protect their reputations ?  For this to happen you'd have to believe the following: -

 

1. They did this between 6pm and 8.30 (that's the timeframe I was talking about) because Maddy was seen by eyewitnesses up to 6pm.

2. They'd have to have done something horrendous, then quickly decide there was no way resuscitation or getting to a hospital was going to work, so  came up with a watertight abduction plan !

3. One of the parents ( or an accomplice !)  drives somewhere, expertly dispose of the body, and returns to the busy resort WITHOUT BEING SEEN.

4. Get changed for dinner (after killing their child) and act as if nothing had happened for the next 2.5 hrs.

5. Carry on this charade for years, meeting the pope and writing a book, all the while knowing, they'd done it !

 

I know you probably don't advocate this -  but is this what Isabelle thinks ? 

 

 

 

 

[The Doc]

Without getting involved in debating Isabelle McFadden, there’s a wee bit more to the cadaver dogs than simply ‘two dogs barking independently’. 

 

 

 

 

[Homme]

 

On 21/03/2019 at 14:36, NANOJAMBO said:

 

 

Had a good read at all that Isabelle girls stuff.

 

Biggest pile of pish I've seen in a long time. Awful. 

 

Nano I don't mean to quote you. Can't delete the quotation box on my mob for some reason! 

[tcjambo]

What's the protocol that you're meant to follow when your child goes missing and at the same time you are under investigation?  Unfortunately, as far as I can see a lot of people made their minds up about the McCanns according to their prejudices.

[felix]

4 hours ago, The Doc said:

Without getting involved in debating Isabelle McFadden, there’s a wee bit more to the cadaver dogs than simply ‘two dogs barking independently’. 

 

There was indeed.

And there's a very good reason their actions have been dismissed as worthless, in this case..

[The Doc]

11 minutes ago, felix said:

There was indeed.

And there's a very good reason their actions have been dismissed as worthless, in this case..

For those interested in the dogs

 

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html?m=1

[NANOJAMBO]

5 hours ago, Homme said:

 

 

Had a good read at all that Isabelle girls stuff.

 

Biggest pile of pish I've seen in a long time. Awful. 

 

Nano I don't mean to quote you. Can't delete the quotation box on my mob for some reason! 

No worries. 

[NANOJAMBO]

7 hours ago, felix said:

 

 

1. They did this between 6pm and 8.30 (that's the timeframe I was talking about) because Maddy was seen by eyewitnesses up to 6pm.

2. They'd have to have done something horrendous, then quickly decide there was no way resuscitation or getting to a hospital was going to work, so  came up with a watertight abduction plan !

3. One of the parents ( or an accomplice !)  drives somewhere, expertly dispose of the body, and returns to the busy resort WITHOUT BEING SEEN.

4. Get changed for dinner (after killing their child) and act as if nothing had happened for the next 2.5 hrs.

5. Carry on this charade for years, meeting the pope and writing a book, all the while knowing, they'd done it !

 

I know you probably don't advocate this -  but is this what Isabelle thinks ? 

 

 

 

 

Can I suggest you look at it this way.

People think (possibly correctly that the parents could not have been responsible for her death in any way - certainly my position at first- and that there's no possible way they could have hidden the body).

So then look at what is now known the from PJ files - 

 

Parents were checking every 30 mins (then changed to 15 minutes). This is in sworn statement. 

 

No parents checked other people's kids (in part because two couples had baby monitor's with them and didn't NEED to check , although one of the monitor's wasn't  100% reliable IIRC). But the British media never mentioned this. HOWEVER on the "abduction" night it all changed. Suddenly everyone is rushing off to check all the kids they didn't check previously. EXCEPT...

 

Look at the statements of the last witnesses to see MM outside of her parents -

Payne & his little angels scene where he couldn't /wouldn't say what the kids were wearing and everything he said was directly contradicted by K McCann. They didn't agree on whether he was in/out the apt for for how  long they were together.  She said she was wrapped in a  towel, he says he doesn't remember. For me, kinda hard to take that meeting as credible.  

 

Oldfield - his statement on the checking of the final night is a cracker. IMO, he knows he is in the shit because he was supposed to be the last guy to see her. But again , IMO, he knows what that means and he is gonna be in the cross hairs of the police. Look at his statement - he checks, but he doesn't see her. So what was the purpose of the check ?  His statement is all over the place. 

 

So I think there is a major question mark over who actually was the last person - parents apart - to see MM alive. 

 

On the night Jane Tanner - in a McCann production of a "reconstruction"- says Kate was worried about "where you were , had you gone off to watch football" or words to that effect .  So what was he up to? Where had he been and for how long? 

 

All the leads have been investigated and closed down BUT one remains - the one by the Irish family that nails a time, a great description/photofit (that fits , guess who) and clothing similar to that owned by,  guess who ?  That photofit was produced by people working for the McCanns and it was suppressed, AFIAA  Scotland Yard had to ask for it . You might ask how suppressing the photofit helps the search. 

 

I don't speculate on what happened to MM but I am interested in the idea that , actually, the parents might be involved somehow and by their own statements create an element of  doubt where I had been certain they could not possibly have been involved. 

 

I'll close by saying this. People may think  the checking on the kids creates  an alibi for the parents that means they could not have been involved in her death/abduction/disposal/whatever  but looking at the facts from the statements and video evidence , it's not as clear cut as that. IMO. Not when you look at the last two non parental witnesses to her alleged well being. 

[felix]

2 hours ago, The Doc said:

For those interested in the dogs

 

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html?m=1

FFS that blog has some bitter opinion .

On the dogs , it's all over the place,  but at least concedes that without corroborative forensics, the dog reactions are worthless.

 

[The Doc]

http://sonarz.com/mccanns-murder-madeline/

 

Gonçalo Amaral’s video at the end of the piece for those who haven’t seen it.

[felix]

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

All the leads have been investigated and closed down BUT one remains - the one by the Irish family that nails a time, a great description/photofit (that fits , guess who) and clothing similar to that owned by,  guess who ?  That photofit was produced by people working for the McCanns and it was suppressed, AFIAA  Scotland Yard had to ask for it . You might ask how suppressing the photofit helps the search. 

 

You mean the Smiths who saw someone carrying a child at around 10pm ? Does this someone's clothing match Gerry's ?..who was seen by everyone back in the resort at the same time.  You can't be in two places at once.

[Carl Fredrickson]

4 minutes ago, felix said:

You mean the Smiths who saw someone carrying a child at around 10pm ? Does this someone's clothing match Gerry's ?..who was seen by everyone back in the resort at the same time.  You can't be in two places at once.

 

I might be getting confused but i think the photofit related to someone that was sighted on the beach? Apologies if I have picked things up wrong. The more I read and watch the more confused I get!

[felix]

1 hour ago, Carl Fredrickson said:

 

I might be getting confused but i think the photofit related to someone that was sighted on the beach? Apologies if I have picked things up wrong. The more I read and watch the more confused I get!

Understood - loads of people get confused with this case, especially the police chief in charge, Goncalo Amaral - which explains why he was removed.

Not sure which photofit you're referring , but NanoJambo referred to the one outstanding lead, from the irish family. I took that to mean the Smith family from Co Louth - who saw someone carrying a child at 10pm towards the beach - wearing clothes similar to ones Gerry had, however  Gerry was in the bar at that time with his mates !

It was when  they saw Gerry carrying his youngest off the plane on return home, one of the Smiths changed their statement, confirming it was Gerry they'd seen,  based on the way he was holding his child ! You can't make it up.

 

The other photofit at the same time, is Jane Tanners - one of the Tapas 7 - who saw someone near the apartment, carrying a child .

Not aware of a photofit of someone on the beach, but there's lots of theories out there, so it may well exist.

[Carl Fredrickson]

22 minutes ago, felix said:

Understood - loads of people get confused with this case, especially the police chief in charge, Goncalo Amaral - which explains why he was removed.

Not sure which photofit you're referring , but NanoJambo referred to the one outstanding lead, from the irish family. I took that to mean the Smith family from Co Louth - who saw someone carrying a child at 10pm towards the beach - wearing clothes similar to ones Gerry had, however  Gerry was in the bar at that time with his mates !

It was when  they saw Gerry carrying his youngest off the plane on return home, one of the Smiths changed their statement, confirming it was Gerry they'd seen,  based on the way he was holding his child ! You can't make it up.

 

The other photofit at the same time, is Jane Tanners - one of the Tapas 7 - who saw someone near the apartment, carrying a child .

Not aware of a photofit of someone on the beach, but there's lots of theories out there, so it may well exist.

 

Cheers for the explanation.

 

IIRC the photofit of the guy carrying the bairn near the apartment was a guy taking his bairn home from childcare. They came forward quite a way into the investigation and what he was wearing and his clothes were very similar to the photofit. The image was a side on view of him carrying the kid. The photofit that I was thinking of was a face image and it looked strikingly similar to Gerry. Cant remember if that was left hanging or was explained. 

[The Doc]

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/whats-this-about-football-match-jane.html?m=1

[Sooperstar]

The strangest thing about this series is the involvement of Brian Kennedy's son. He brings nothing to it!

[merrymac]

41 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

The strangest thing about this series is the involvement of Brian Kennedy's son. He brings nothing to it!

Apart from the question why was he there?

Brian Kennedy - "I'm no doing any interviews unless my laddie is involved"

[NANOJAMBO]

2 hours ago, felix said:

Understood - loads of people get confused with this case, especially the police chief in charge, Goncalo Amaral - which explains why he was removed.

Not sure which photofit you're referring , but NanoJambo referred to the one outstanding lead, from the irish family. I took that to mean the Smith family from Co Louth - who saw someone carrying a child at 10pm towards the beach - wearing clothes similar to ones Gerry had, however  Gerry was in the bar at that time with his mates !

It was when  they saw Gerry carrying his youngest off the plane on return home, one of the Smiths changed their statement, confirming it was Gerry they'd seen,  based on the way he was holding his child ! You can't make it up.

 

The other photofit at the same time, is Jane Tanners - one of the Tapas 7 - who saw someone near the apartment, carrying a child .

Not aware of a photofit of someone on the beach, but there's lots of theories out there, so it may well exist.

As I refereed to in my earlier post, one of his buddies asked him where he had been , his missus thought he 'd gone off to watch the football he'd been  gone so long (all recorded on video) . So, no, he doesn't have a cast iron alibi. I'm not saying "he dunnit" but he doesn't have an alibi (why do you think Jane Tanner came up with the sighting that night of "the abductor"- which she didn't tell the McCanns about until the next day) . Jane Tanner's sighting was supposed to be the alibi - IMO - but The Met have ruled out her sighting. 

 

And let's not forget they had THREE attempts at creating the famous timeline. Two done on the kids' colouring book and another in the PJ files. 

 

Photofits - there quite a few. 

[The Doc]

Correct Nano.

 

The assumption that Gerry was in the complex at the same time the Smiths seen the man carrying the child is wrong.

 

There is zero evidence to support this.

[felix]

35 minutes ago, The Doc said:

Correct Nano.

The assumption that Gerry was in the complex at the same time the Smiths seen the man carrying the child is wrong.

There is zero evidence to support this.

 

Except the evidence of the 7 people dining at the same time, the waiters and even the acknowledgement of the police chief in the video you posted, that GM was in the restaurant  at 10pm (10 minutes after scuttling the body down to the beach  ).

 

The Amaral video you posted assumes Maddie banged her head and  died - and unbelievably -   instead of taking her to hospital, her parents disposed of her,  because they'd given her Calpol !

Think about that for a moment.

[Sooperstar]

10 hours ago, merrymac said:

Apart from the question why was he there?

Brian Kennedy - "I'm no doing any interviews unless my laddie is involved"

The same thought crossed my mind.

[Homme]

All this bullcrap about differing timelines etc.

 

Here's a challenge. Next time you're our with your mates having a few, meet up the next morning and try to create a timeline of when you all went to the toilet, when one of you nipped out for a fag or a chat on the phone. 

 

Remember though, your timeline must match all your mates, otherwise your a lying, murdering piece of shit

 

[NANOJAMBO]

13 hours ago, felix said:

 

Except the evidence of the 7 people dining at the same time, the waiters and even the acknowledgement of the police chief in the video you posted, that GM was in the restaurant  at 10pm (10 minutes after scuttling the body down to the beach  ).

 

The Amaral video you posted assumes Maddie banged her head and  died - and unbelievably -   instead of taking her to hospital, her parents disposed of her,  because they'd given her Calpol !

Think about that for a moment.

No offence I've got better things to do than engage with this kind of stuff.

Your use of language is bordering on the insulting.  If you can't treat it seriously then I'd rather not be involved.

Cheers. 

[NANOJAMBO]

9 minutes ago, Homme said:

All this bullcrap about differing timelines etc.

 

Here's a challenge. Next time you're our with your mates having a few, meet up the next morning and try to create a timeline of when you all went to the toilet, when one of you nipped out for a fag or a chat on the phone. 

 

Remember though, your timeline must match all your mates, otherwise your a lying, murdering piece of shit

 

Well thought out. Comparing a night on the piss to a child disappearance.  

[The Doc]

32 minutes ago, Homme said:

All this bullcrap about differing timelines etc.

 

Here's a challenge. Next time you're our with your mates having a few, meet up the next morning and try to create a timeline of when you all went to the toilet, when one of you nipped out for a fag or a chat on the phone. 

 

Remember though, your timeline must match all your mates, otherwise your a lying, murdering piece of shit

 

 

Equally though, that being the case it potentially creates a gap greater than has been recorded officially.

 

Gerry was missing from the rest of the group for some time. That much is clear.

[rudi must stay]

1 hour ago, Homme said:

All this bullcrap about differing timelines etc.

 

Here's a challenge. Next time you're our with your mates having a few, meet up the next morning and try to create a timeline of when you all went to the toilet, when one of you nipped out for a fag or a chat on the phone. 

 

Remember though, your timeline must match all your mates, otherwise your a lying, murdering piece of shit

 

 

They all had kids though. For me they should all be talking, doctors too. Obviously intelligent people, I bet they remember it all and some of it could be crucial. Their egos, same with the McCann's, have got in the way. Instead of being elusive and mysterious just be honest 

[felix]

34 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

No offence I've got better things to do than engage with this kind of stuff.

Your use of language is bordering on the insulting.  If you can't treat it seriously then I'd rather not be involved.

Cheers. 

I thought quoting the police chief's theory was serious ! 

Completely understand why Isabelle McFadden is more engaging.

 

 

[Homme]

2 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Well thought out. Comparing a night on the piss to a child disappearance.  

 

Ah so there wasn't a large group, folk coming and going or alcoholic drinks involved?

 

Timeline must be a piece of piss to remember then.

[HKP]

Have a listen to this about the DNA (released today)

 

https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/the-dna

There's a whole series there to listen to

Edited March 25, 2019 by HKP

[felix]

23 hours ago, The Doc said:

 

Equally though, that being the case it potentially creates a gap greater than has been recorded officially.

 

Gerry was missing from the rest of the group for some time. That much is clear.

30 / 40 minutes. Enough time for him to run to the beach, or hide a body and return to the dinner table ? 

[Tommy Brown]

22 hours ago, Homme said:

 

Ah so there wasn't a large group, folk coming and going or alcoholic drinks involved?

 

Timeline must be a piece of piss to remember then.

Seven people meeting up just before 7pm and having a monumental unforgettable incident at 10pm.

 

not really equivalent to a night on the piss.

 

I am pretty sure they were not necking back alcohol like no tomorrow, they should be able able to account for their movements a lot better.

 

Checking their kids every 15-20 mins, ****ing bollocks.

And if GM has been away for 40-45 mins, surely you would be thinking "where's that ***** ****ed off to?"

 

 

[Homme]

4 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Seven people meeting up just before 7pm and having a monumental unforgettable incident at 10pm.

 

not really equivalent to a night on the piss.

 

I am pretty sure they were not necking back alcohol like no tomorrow, they should be able able to account for their movements a lot better.

 

Checking their kids every 15-20 mins, ****ing bollocks.

And if GM has been away for 40-45 mins, surely you would be thinking "where's that ***** ****ed off to?"

 

 

 

Righto.

 

It's Christmas time. You've got family round. Someone forgot to buy alcohol.

 

The youngest disappears at 10pm out the door. Tell me who went to the toilet or out for a fag, at what time, in what order and how long they were away for from when everyone arrived until the incident.

 

Again, lets ask the family and see how they remember all these insignificant details until a very significant incident. Think everyone will recall everything the same as the next person? 

[haveyouheard 22]

53 minutes ago, Homme said:

 

Righto.

 

It's Christmas time. You've got family round. Someone forgot to buy alcohol.

 

The youngest disappears at 10pm out the door. Tell me who went to the toilet or out for a fag, at what time, in what order and how long they were away for from when everyone arrived until the incident.

 

Again, lets ask the family and see how they remember all these insignificant details until a very significant incident. Think everyone will recall everything the same as the next person? 

Bang on mate 

[ToadKiller Dog]

I think although the documentary series doesn't really show anything new on said case it does highlight how big a problem human trafficking is and the organisation of sex offenders due to the Internet. 

The police forces worldwide don't have an easy job. 

I personally feel the Mccanns are innocent of anything bar maybe negligence and maybe a bit of arrogance before the event happened. 

Hope the truth and the girl now as she's no longer a child is found. 

[HKP]

3 hours ago, Homme said:

 

Righto.

 

It's Christmas time. You've got family round. Someone forgot to buy alcohol.

 

The youngest disappears at 10pm out the door. Tell me who went to the toilet or out for a fag, at what time, in what order and how long they were away for from when everyone arrived until the incident.

 

Again, lets ask the family and see how they remember all these insignificant details until a very significant incident. Think everyone will recall everything the same as the next person? 

Ok, let's look at what was said and see if it makes sense. At 9:30 pm Kate gets up and says it's her turn to check. Matt Oldfield offers to check on Madeleine (not all the kids, just Madeleine) as he's going to check on his kid anyways. This (trumped up)  story is told by both Matt & Kate in statements.  It's one of the hundreds of things that are wrong.

 

By the way, the Thursday (when Maddie went missing) is the only night where someone checked on anybody other than their own kids, the McCanns never checked any others at all. If we are to believe their story

Edited March 26, 2019 by HKP

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, ToadKiller Dog said:

I think although the documentary series doesn't really show anything new on said case it does highlight how big a problem human trafficking is and the organisation of sex offenders due to the Internet. 

The police forces worldwide don't have an easy job. 

I personally feel the Mccanns are innocent of anything bar maybe negligence and maybe a bit of arrogance before the event happened. 

Hope the truth and the girl now as she's no longer a child is found. 

Maybe negligence? Maybe?

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, HKP said:

Ok, let's look at what was said and see if it makes sense. At 9:30 pm Kate gets up and says it's her turn to check. Matt Oldfield offers to check on Madeleine (not all the kids, just Madeleine) as he's going to check on his kid anyways. This (trumped up)  story is told by both Matt & Kate in statements.  It's one of the hundreds of things that are wrong.

 

By the way, the Thursday (when Maddie went missing) is the only night where someone checked on anybody other than their own kids, the McCanns never checked any others at all. If we are to believe their story

 

Were you there like? 

[haveyouheard 22]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Were you there like? 

The parents were not thats for sure , they were having a party   and when asked closed ranks and  not for the first time , like from the off 

[HKP]

2 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Were you there like? 

Gerry first claimed he went back to the apartment and used his key to unlock the front door. He then changed it to entered the apartment from the unlocked patio door

[haveyouheard 22]

For what its worth and  i dont go with the conspire theories  either  but without shocking parental responsibility  it all led to an ablution and sadly to the demise of an innocent, well thats my take 

[ToadKiller Dog]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Maybe negligence? Maybe?

I was being diplomatic 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The Government have told the Met Police that they will fund the search for Maddie for nearly another year, until March 2020.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48533619

 

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Jambo-Jimbo

[indianajones]

£11 million.

 

Farcical. 

[milky_26]

Just now, indianajones said:

£11 million.

 

Farcical. 

if i was the parent of a missing child i would be demanding the same money spent trying to find them

[indianajones]

Just now, milky_26 said:

if i was the parent of a missing child i would be demanding the same money spent trying to find them

 

I am sure there are many parents of missing children that are wondering why £11 million is not getting spent in finding their missing children. 

 

I bet there are also many non-negligent parents wondering the same too. 

[Der Kaiser]

Out of interest, is it written anywhere at what time was the last sighting of Maddy by someone other than her parents?

[Herbert.]

22 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said:

Out of interest, is it written anywhere at what time was the last sighting of Maddy by someone other than her parents?

 

 

The thing I watched  I'm sure said one of the nannys wasnt sure she was at kids club that day. The whole pretence that she's alive is beyond a joke. Kate and Gerry must have a good friend in the media for them not to even question the parents despite evidence and attacking the Portuguese police for declaring them a suspect.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, indianajones said:

£11 million.

 

Farcical. 

Yip 11 million total but only a further 300k or so to keep it going for now. 

 

A lot of money spent without the central characters being put under any real scrutiny.

 

Anyone for tennis?

[Jambof3tornado]

Crazy decision.