Sue

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I still don't understand your purpose in starting > (and perpetuating) this thread. You are obsessed > with the case, that much is clear (that's not a > criticism, by the way). You are determined that > everybody should recognise, if not the accuracy, > then the validity of your point of view. However, > there does not appear to be any other point you > are trying to make. I have explained several times why I started the thread. I'm now trying to let it finish, as should have been clear from my posts last night. So why are you continuing a pointless conversation? > > I should make it clear that I have zero interest > in the specific facts of the McCann case, although > the surrounding arguments about parental > responsibility are kind of interesting. If you have zero interest, why on earth are you posting on this thread and perpetuating it? Why not start another thread about parental responsibility? I'm sorry for the bold font, I'm not trying to shout, but I find a load of plain text makes it hard to disentangle one person's comments from another, and maybe other people do too. Edited to add: Sorry if any of the above sounded rude, but I really was hoping that last night's posts would be the end of it.

I looked out of my living room window last night and saw a foxy staring at me from across the road. We gazed at each other for a while and I went outside. We continued the gazing for a further while, then he (or she) padded off down the street. Only other time that's happened to me is when I was living in a hut on a farm. I love foxes. Sorry for the hens though. The farmers used to shut their hens in a henhouse each night so the foxes couldn't get them. Unfortunately one of the hens stuck its head out of a small gap in the henhouse. The next morning a headless chicken (literally) was found inside the henhouse. Ooops.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have said it before and I shall say it again; > parking attendants are the scum of the earth. xxxxxx That's not fair PeckhamRose, some of them might have a bit of an attitude but there is a reason for parking restrictions, and it's to keep traffic moving. Hugs, however xx

Giant Moths. Or clowns, possibly.

computedshorty, respect! You are the East Dulwich equivalent of William McGonagall! xx

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > public toilet needed though. xxxxxxxx What's wrong with the Palmerston? You just need to stride boldly in as if you were about to eat there :))

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the thing is Sue, if you had already made your > points there's no need to reply to other peoples' > posts in order to show that you don't agree with > them because if their viewpoints are different to > yours in the first place then obviously you > wouldn't agree with them. xxxxxxxxx Unfortunately, experience has shown me that if you don't respond to a post then it will be assumed that you have given up attempting to make your point. It is very hard when you are trying to argue based on logic and other people do not seem to be able to do the same. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anyway, you've all ended > up agreeing to disagree (I think) so I just think > this thread has been an insane waste of your > energy. BUT maybe some people have enjoyed it? Who > knows. xxxxxxxxxxx Yes it has been a bit harrowing because I don't like to play games. But my purpose in starting the thread was .... oh, wait, I've explained that several times already :-S Edited to attempt to disentangle zeban's post from mine :)

Tarot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue are you writing a book on, theory and evidence > of murder. xxxxxxxxx To repeat yet again what I have already repeated ad nauseam (well I'm sick of repeating it, anyway) I have never at any point suggested that murder was involved in this case, and nor do I believe it. I do think that it is possible that Madeleine accidentally died in the apartment whilst left alone, and I have explained why I think that is a possibility. That is a very long way from murder. That would really be a dark thread. Think badly of me if you must, but please don't think I am suggesting that.

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue Wrote: > > I've said all I've got to say, and I agree > there > > is absolutely no point in dragging it out any > > further. > > Thank God for that. Only took 8 pages to realise > that xxxxxxxx Let's be fair here. If you look back through those 8 pages you will see that almost all my posts were in response to other people dragging it out. As I already said about 6 pages back (:))) if I had not responded to other people's posts it would have looked as if I agreed with them. It wasn't me who said I was making my final post and told admin I would no longer post on the thread, and then started again.

As I have previously posted, I bear full responsibility for everything I've written on this thread. So far as the McCanns are concerned, they and their "spokesman" have kept this story in the news, so they can hardly be surprised if people like myself want to discuss it. I have been very careful in what I have said, and I have tried to keep away from any kind of speculation which could be construed as slander or libel. I have tried to keep to the known facts, though I can't be responsible for other people's posts. It was not at all my intention to make the thread seem like a kangaroo court, merely - as I said at the start - to bring to people's attention some information which the UK press has not publicised. I've said all I've got to say, and I agree there is absolutely no point in dragging it out any further. There is little point in attempting to discuss the case with people who don't address the points I am making.

And to pre-empt yet another post about "evidence", I made a distinction early in this thread between conclusive evidence and indicative evidence. If you can present me with any indicative evidence for your theory that Madeleine was abducted by an organised gang and that the police tried to lay the blame on her parents, I am very happy to consider your theory. If you can't, then I'm afraid I don't think there is any point.

And so it goes on .... and on ..... and on ..... You're not actually debating this case with me, DJKQ. I answer your points one by one, but you don't respond to the points I make. That's not a debate. You say I'm "not prepared to consider any possible theory apart from my own" - yet you haven't presented any other credible theories. As has been pointed out to you by others, it would be a theory to say that Madeleine was abducted by aliens, or eaten by wolves. Or swept from the apartment by a random whirlwind. Jesus Christ, talk about banging my head against a brick wall. How many times must I repeat that yes, there is no hard evidence, and yes, that is why no prosecution has been brought. We are eight pages on and you still seem to be stuck on page one.

Is that true, Dulwich Fox? It certainly doesn't seem to have been much in use as a gallery lately.

Walking down North Cross Road and Lordship Lane on a Saturday, and usually bumping into at least half a dozen people I know. Fantastic friendly and helpful neighbours. Real sense of community - the Crystal Palace Road street party last summer springs to mind. Great choice of places to hang out, eat and drink. Convenient shops within walking distance so I can use my shopping trolley. Friendly helpful postman (meant to start a friendly helpful postie thread before Christmas and forgot, sorry Ulverscroft Road postie). Local live music. Woods and parks within walking distance.

Is this an isolated incident, or a series of incidents in the area?

Well maybe I shall never know, but thanks anyway Sean :)

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are potential trails to criminal > gangs.....but SY can't publicise that all of that > kind of information because it can jepoardise > other investigations into the same gangs. There > are several plausable theories xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What are they? Why are they plausible? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and Portugal has a > poor record on this...even you must acknowledge > that.....which has made it a soft target for these > gangs and their operations. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx That does not mean a gang was operating in this case. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > My point on the key is that it is perfectly > possible that an organised gang pre-ordered > Madeliene, surveilled her and then abducted her in > an organised fashion, leaving very little physical > evidence. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What's a key got to do with it? Is that your theory then? Is there any evidence that Madeleine was under surveillance before she disappeared? Is there any evidence of an organised gang? I understand that most abductors take younger children. Why wasn't one of the twins taken, or all three children come to that if the operation was so organised? They didn't leave "very little physical evidence" of an abduction, to the best of my knowledge they left none at all, despite the McCanns initially claiming that the shutters had been forced open from the outside, which was subsequently shown to be untrue. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thousands of children disappear > world-wide every year at the hands of these gangs, > no trace ever left. > > You also must admit that the procedure followed by > the Portuguese Police in their failure to seal off > the crime scene and properly examine it > forensically in the early part of the > investigation has probably destroyed any chance of > forensic evidence ever being anything but > contaminated and inadmissable. That's a major > criticism. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes, if that is true (and I believe it is) of course it is a major criticism. So the police just have to go on what other evidence they have, in that situation. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > My issue with your argument in the early part of > the thread has always been your eagerness to blame > some failings of the case (and Police) on the > McCanns. You did it there again, blaming the poor > ferensic evidence on them letting friends into the > apartment after they first saw Madeleine had gone. > Well I think most people in the immediate > aftermath of their child being missing would lets > friends join a search, it wouldn't even occur to > them that they might be affecting forensic > evidence. They are not police officers after all. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx That's weird, because I believe Mrs McCann said in at least one interview that she was well aware of the importance of not contaminating a crime scene. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > That is the crux my problem with your debate. We > all agree that leaving chidlren unspervised is not > a good idea but you confuse that with the mental > state of someone that has lost a child and so have > looked for 'deliberate meaning' in things relating > to the McCanns that have no meaning at all (in > order to support Amarals theory). At times you > seem more intent on assigning blame to the McCanns > than having a debate around evidence, or lack of, > or procedure. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OK, DJKQ, let me ask YOU just a few questions. 1. The door of the apartment was, according to the McCanns, left unlocked. Mrs McCann says she "knew immediately" that Madeleine had been abducted. Madeleine was nearly four. Why wasn't Mrs McCann's first thought that Madeleine had got out of bed, gone through the apparently unlocked door, and wandered off, perhaps trying to find her parents? 2. Why, if there was an abduction, did Mrs McCann refuse to answer 48 questions put to her by the police? Yes it was her legal right to do so - but you might consider it rather a strange way to help find out what had happened to her daughter. 3. Why did the McCanns and their friends refuse a police request to return to Portugal for a reconstruction which would have clarified inconsistencies in their statements and help establish a more accurate timeline, including whatever window/s of opportunity there could have been for an abductor to enter the apartment and carry Madeleine away? 4. Regardless of whether the DNA in the apartment was degraded or not, what were the two highly trained dogs alerting to, if a live child had been taken out of the apartment by an abductor? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > As impetuous has said when you look at ALL the > leads, devlopments etc, within the timeline of > their occurance, the picture is a quagmire. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes it is. That's why the police wanted a reconstruction. So why did the parents and their friends refuse to go? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx There > is no clear cut 'most likely' theory, but a mess > of conflicting information any part of which could > be possible but none of which proves any theory > likely enough in either way. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Well I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, yet again. I've stated what I think is the most likely theory, with supporting evidence. You have given no evidence for any other theory apart from vague statements about gangs in Portugal - have you? Have I missed it? I'm not being sarcastic, I actually would genuinely like to know. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > I also wouldn't dismiss the Wiki article out of > hand. It seems to me to be a well researched and > balanced attempt at presenting a fair overview. > There are two acompanying pages by the author as > well where he (or she) lists things omiitted or > edited out either because they couldn't be > corroberated or sources provided. And in itself it > is a good example of just how complicated the case > is. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I will have a look at it, but it has always been my understanding that Wiki is not in general a reliable source of information. I really think we are going round in circles again DJKQ, unless you can come up with some supporting evidence for your theory that Madeleine was abducted by an organised gang who left no trace.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And why assume the abductor came through a locked > door. They could have had a key, especially if we > are talking about an organisted criminal gang (not > hard to get hold of the key to a holiday let and > copy it after all). xxxxxx Eh? The McCanns said that the apartment was left unlocked. Of course anybody could have had a key or got one copied, what is your point? Where is there any evidence for an "organised criminal gang"? Edited to remove reference to DJKQ's use of "locked" rather than "unlocked" in the post of hers which I quoted.

expat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >accidental death in the apartment. > > So I ask again how was the body disposed off in > such a way nobody has found it? xxxxxxxxxxxx Well that's one of the unknown things about the case, isn't it? Bit like, why a supposed abductor would choose to come in through an unlocked door and leave through a small window. There are several theories about how a body could have been disposed of, but I have tried not to venture into speculation that isn't based on known information, and I would rather not repeat any of them here. You can find plenty of speculative discussion elsewhere, I'm sure.

One advantage of Winter is that you can often see the birds better - we saw a woodpecker in the woods the other day. Sadly it was getting dark and we couldn't see what kind - just its distinctive shape.

Thanks Sean, I guess that could have been the problem. At first I thought it was because there were bullet points in the Word document, but even when I took those out it still happened, and with virtually every post even if they contained different text, but as you say it now seems to have been sorted. Is there a maximum allowable length? Could the posts have been too long? I was catching up after Christmas :) Edited to add: The reason for the number of posts is because I thought maybe I was exceeding some maximum length.

Sorry to be so dim, but I don't know what the "no comment" references are. Did I miss a post somewhere in the thread? Duh if so. I have already put forward a fair amount of information which I think all points in the direction (and I put it no stronger than that) of an accidental death in the apartment. I would rather not have to repeat it all again, but if you don't want to trawl back through all this stuff you can click on my name and my posts will come up in one place. EDITED TO ADD: Actually, ignore that, there's too much, probably easier just to look back on the thread. However, I am still not sure quite what theory DJKQ is putting forward, if any, and based on what evidence. I don't want to put words into her mouth, but based on her posts, it seems to be that there was probably an abduction, but that the Portuguese police were incompetent and corrupt and therefore tried to frame the McCanns, even though British police were involved. Is that correct, DJKQ, or have I misread your posts? Edited to add: Thanks anyone who has managed to stay with me through this barrage of posts, and I'm sorry - should have had my nose glued to the EDF over Christmas, obviously ....

DJKQ refers to "biased" sites. As I said in my OP, there are many many internet forums discussing this case. Unless they are exceptionally well moderated (and some are better than others) they are likely to be biased in one way or another (as are sites like Wiki, depending on who contributes to them). This is because it is human nature that people will tend to gravitate to sites which appear to share their own views. If DJKQ has found some completely unbiased sites, I would be genuinely interested in knowing about them. I know of several sites which contain source material relating to the case, for example interviews with the McCanns, witness statements etc, but of course people having read this then want to discuss it. As soon as a discussion starts, then there is potential bias, if that's what you wish to call it, because surely discussion is the presentation of various views?

It may be that some of the variation in the suspect IDs were down to poor translation, as you say. However, I believe it is the case that Jane Tanner (for example) did change her description several times of the person she claimed to have seen. I may be wrong. Also, given the nature of the light, it is hard to understand how she could have seen some of the details which she apparently claimed to have seen. This, of course, would be one of the things which a reconstruction of the evening's events could have thrown light on (sorry for the pun) so it is a pity that the parents and their friends declined to attend one.

Still having a lot of trouble posting, so sorry for the dribs and drabs. Louisiana, your points about the translations are very sound. Computer translations do result in all sorts of stupidities and inaccuracies. I think they have sometimes been used in this case for speed, on the basis that they are better than nothing until somebody (who as you have pointed out may also not be a professional translator) has time to produce something a bit better. Unfortunately my interest in the case and my language skills do not extend to "picking up" Portuguese in "a few months" :)