Sue

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Truth or > theory...which is it Sue? xxxxxxxx I think this is where I just give up. You don't seem to have properly read any of my posts on this thread. Nor do you seem to grasp the fact that I am saying that I think that one particular THEORY, looking at available indicative (ie NOT CONCLUSIVE) evidence is the MOST LIKELY in this case, and that I COULD BE WRONG because UNTIL FURTHER EVIDENCE IS FOUND nobody will know. And that IF further CONCLUSIVE evidence comes along then we will know which THEORY, if any, was proved right, and what was the TRUTH of the case. And if that sounds patronising, then in this instance, and this instance only, it was meant to be, because I am at the point of making a lot of personal comments about you which I would sorely regret later on.

------------------------------------------------------- > DJKillaQueen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- >.something you seem > unable > > to accept or comprehend xxxxxxxx And that's completely unpatronising, yes? :))

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >And whilst I admire your > crusade there are a ton of journalists who will be > the first to know if anything new comes to light, > and inform us all. It's their job after all. > > xxxxxxxxx Are you serious? Have you read my post of 02.33 above? Sometimes it seems as if you fire off posts without having read a word I've said :-S

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bellenden Belle has put is succinctly. The replies > are obsessive and now patronising too. > > Sue, I keep replying with the same counter > argument...because the theory you keep listing > details of is flawed...something you seem unable > to accept or comprehend xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pots and kettles here, DJKQ, I think. But at risk of again being called patronising, you don't seem to understand what a theory IS.

huncamunca Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I could tell what is is now privately considered > the generally accepted story behind this - > gleaned from someone who works closely with very > senior British coppery on intelligence matters, > but Wont, as it would send some posters into a > frothing, excitable frenzy. > xxxxxx Oh for God's sake :))

Bellenden Belle Wrote: > What exactly do you hope to gain by this thread > Sue? Why are you putting so much time and energy > into this? I'm actually more curious about your > response than the actual Mccann case. xxxxxxxxxx I have spent three years being very frustrated at the lack of objective reporting of this case in this country, not just in the tabloids but in the broadsheets as well. Whether that is due to the laziness of journalists in regurgitating press releases from the McCann's "spokesman", due to fear of litigation even for printing actual objective facts about the case, or some other reason, I don't know. In particular, I have been outraged at the way the Portuguese, the Portuguese police, and Sr Amaral in particular, have been slagged off and called names - bumbling, sardine munchers etc - as if they were some sort of Keystone Cops (they were probably called that as well, somewhere). The publication of the wikileak makes clear that there was British police involvement. That was not a secret before, but it was not exactly trumpeted by the press, who preferred to whip up the public's xenophobia by suggesting an incompetent foreign police force was not properly investigating a little girl's disappearance. It was the wikileak which initially led me to post on here, combined with Sr Amaral winning his appeal which enabled him to continue publishing his book in Portugal. I wanted to put some information out to counter what people have been fed by the press about the case. I'm not talking about the obviously fictional stories, I'm talking about a one-sided view which has mostly concentrated on "abduction" (though it is very noticeable that the word "disappearance" is being more widely used now). I'm not sure that will satisfy the posters on here who seem to think I'm on some sort of witch hunt, but at the end of the day I want to see the truth emerge about what happened to a little girl who has disappeared. If that truth is that she was hauled out of an apartment window by a stranger, then so be it.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The other point of > interest is the Irish couple who saw a man heading > towards the beach with a child held in his arms. > xxxxxxxxx Ah yes, the Smith (I think his name was Smith) sighting. I've carefully avoided mentioning the Smith sighting. The McCanns have been strangely quiet about the Smith sighting, which hasn't been publicised amongst all these other "sightings" of Madeleine all over the world which are so beloved of the gutter press to keep their circulation up. What you fail to mention, DJKQ, is that when Mr Smith saw video footage on the news of Mr McCann carrying one of his younger children off the plane when the McCanns came back to England, he apparently realised that the man he had seen carrying a child (whom he had assumed was sleeping) on the night Madeleine disappeared was probably Mr McCann himself.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are right about the bias of those sites > Taper...none of them take an objective look. Sr > Almara is the closest to objective because he is > trying to piece together a theory that might make > sense from some of the pieces......but it's all > circumstantial. There are plenty of other sites which slag off Sr Amaral and treat the parents as saints. Anywhere where there is discussion of the case, as here, is going to divide opinion. That is why I posted last night a link to the McCann Files, which as well as opinion also have a great deal of the actual undisputed factual evidence available, such as witness statements. > I can totally understand why Mrs McCann would want > to beleive in abduction. You have, again, missed the point. The point is that she immediately claimed that there had been an abduction, rather than coming to the more likely conclusion that her daughter had woken up and wandered out of an apartment which according to Mrs McCann's own account had been left unlocked.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Sue has presented NO evidence Impetuous...just > a theory presented by a Portuguese Police > inspector who worked on the case - who let's not > forget was fired as a result. He was not "fired as a result", he was taken off the case because - and this is from memory - he made comments about British involvement in the case to the press, and his superiors didn't like it. His replacement came to exactly the same conclusion as Sr Amaral. You can read the conclusions which the police investigation came to, which were published when the case was shelved. If you can't be bothered to find them, but would rather just continue firing off inaccuracies on here, then I'll find them and post them here. As a theory it's > plausible, just like many other theories, > including abduction but there is no hard evidence > to back up any of those theories and so to > conclude anything from it is just assumption. > No-one knows what really happened that evening and > probably won't until a body is found, if ever. Why do you have to keep on making the same point over and over again? And why do I have to keep on reiterating that yes it's a theory and has to be a theory because as you say there is no conclusive proof, and abduction might be a theory as well, as might being carried away by aliens, but there's no evidence for either of those whereas there is indicative evidence for accidental death and a cover-up. > > It's perfectly normal for cases to be closed when > they have nowhere further to go and then be > re-opened if new evidence comes to light. That is > where this case is at. Yes, the case has been shelved for lack of sufficient evidence at the moment. What's your point? > Thank goodness we do have courts to decide on > these things and the days of mob lynching are > over. Again, what's your point? Who's suggesting a mob lynching? Why do you keep on posting on here, saying the same old stuff over and over again, when you made what you said were your final words on the matter last night? It's just getting really boring, tbh.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keep rubbing that groin with the base of your hand > sue....ooooh tapas 11 *sweat sweat* uh uh maddie's > DNA *grunt* xxxxxxxx Why are you being so offensive to me on this thread, mockney? I have already said that I have an interest in this case, and have had since it was first publicised. Do you not have interests in things? Is that somehow different, in your superior case?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guilty as charged then xxxxxxxxx Mrs McCann had every legal right to remain silent, and quite obviously that does not make her guilty of anything. However if as she claims there was an abduction, it does seem strange that she would not answer the questions.

During eleven hours of questioning, Kate McCann exercised her right to remain silent and did not answer 48 specific questions. She answered only one question (the very last one) - was she aware that by maintaining her right to silence she might harm the hunt for Madeleine. These were the questions: 1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch? 2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn?t answer) 3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? 4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa? 5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine?s disappearance? 6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted? 7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ?Tapas? and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment. 8. Why didn?t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn?t you ask them later on? 9. When you raised the alarm at the ?Tapas? what exactly did you say and what were your exact words? 10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ?Tapas?? 11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah? 12. Who contacted the authorities? 13. Who took place in the searches? 14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine?s disappearance in those following minutes? 15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance? 16. What does ?we let her down? mean? 17. Did Jane tell you that night that she?d seen a man with a child? 18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? 19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? 20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? 21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? 22. Did you call Sky News? 23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? 24. Did you ask for a priest? 25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine?s features, by photographs or by any other means? 26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie?s bed without moving? 27. What was your behaviour that night? 28. Did you manage to sleep? 29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? 30. What was Madeleine?s behaviour like? 31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? 32. What was Madeleine?s relationship like with her brother and sister? 33. What was Madeleine?s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? 34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? 35. What is your medical specialty? 36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? 37. Did you work every day? 38. At a certain point you stopped working, why? 39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? 40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children?s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy? 41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine?s custody to a relative? 42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? 43. In the case files you were shown canine forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 47. When confronted with the results of Maddie?s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter?s disappearance? And this is the only question which she answered: Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter? A. ?Yes, if that?s what the investigation thinks.?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue wrote: > > > Their version of Gentleman Soldier still makes me > > laugh every time I hear it :)) > > " > > It's of a gentleman soldier as a sentry he did > stand > > He saluted a fair maiden, by a waiving of his > hand > > So then he boldly kissed her and he passed it off > as a joke > > He drilled her up in the sentry boxwrapped up in a > soldier's cloke > > xxxxxxxxxx It's not so much the words which make me laugh - he doesn't change the traditional words used in other versions much, if at all - it's the way he does the two voices, especially the woman's - "Oh come my gentleman soldier, and won't you marry me", for example, in a high pitched squeal.

I'm going to bed now. DJKQ, please don't post again unless you have something constructive to add, it's a waste of both of our times. Thanks.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only person responsible for Madeleine's > disappearance is the person that took her or knows > what happened to her. > > Thankfully it's a rare thing. xxxxxxxx Jesus Christ. You can't give up, can you? Yet more "final words"? You've edited the post of 11.19 that previously just said "Whatever ..." to say something else completely :)) So - let's be clear about this - you don't think that the McCanns were in any way responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine, despite leaving her alone at night, night after night? Words fail me. Really.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Anyway...my final words are xxxxxxx You have to have the last word, don't you? If you haven't got anything more to contribute to the discussion, why bother? Why say these are your final words and then go on to say more? ETA: Oh, I see you've now removed your last post.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- , the chances are, on a > thread about the pogues, an arbitrary sequence of > words containing faggot is likely to not be a > random offensive use of the word. xxxxxxx :)):)):))

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And as always my sympathy remains with the McCanns > for their lost child. xxxxxxx As always, my sympathy remains with the child who was so dismally failed by her parents.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > But in respect to this thread I totally agree the > debates are circular, done to death and > pointless...was kind of my point really (I > think).... xxxxxxx Why on earth are you continuing the debate then, if that's your opinion?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do you know that? > > It's in the timeline of the doc (which I have > watched) you reference in the title of this thread > (jesus)......if you can't even get that right then > I suggest you go back and revisit your own sources > of reference. Could you be a bit clearer please, I don't understand what you mean, the title of my thread is the title of Sr Amaral's book. > > I've read the sites you've linked to... You can't possibly have read the whole of the McCann Files, as I only posted the link tonight! .and I have > countered the points of your argument eloquently. Well we'll have to agree to disagree then, as I don't think you have. > You don't seem to want to acknowledge any theory > beyond the ones you are peddling. You haven't advanced one, have you? I will conceed > that you are arguing that abduction didn't happen > (rather than murder/ manslaughter) but you are not > presenting any theory so concrete that abduction > can be dismissed. If you have as you say read the websites I have linked to, though I can't see how you can possibly have read the whole of the McCann Files in a few hours, which include police interviews and a great deal else, you would be well aware that there is no evidence for an abduction. > > You have repeatedly criticised the McCanns for > every aspect of their efforts to find their child. What efforts? Not cooperating with the police? Not asking for the case to be reopened when they could have done? Employing private investigators with no track record of finding missing children? Employing private investigators one of whom is now under investigation himself? Employing a team of lawyers which includes those who represented General Pinochet when he was trying to avoid extradition? Employing a "spokesman" to spin their story? > Can you not understand why a parent would want to > continue to believe their child is alive and do > what they can to find them? Or is it the case that > you think they know their child is dead and so are > somehow conning us all to cover that up (which is > what you must believe from some of your criticism > and cycnicism on their continued belief in > abduction). > > You started this thread by showing support and > credance to the argument presented by the Police > Inspector (who incidently was fired) you refer to > in your opening post...that's why you are sourcing > the links and documentary and account's that you > are...... I have linked to the McCann Files, why don't you read them, you clearly haven't. And why don't you look at the reason why Sr Amaral was removed from the investigation? > > I'm not removing any statements. You have stated that I said the parents killed their child. That is not true. If you won't remove your statement I will ask admin to remove it. > > I do think you are cold-hearted in your continued > lack of sympathy at what the McCanns must have > gone through in losing their child (you are more > fixated in criticising and/or implicating them). > Yes I do have LOTS of experience of children thank > you very much. Well I hope that you didn't take too frequent "naps" as you put it when looking after small children, or you might have found yourself in the same position as the McCanns. All parents make mistakes from time > to time......luckily most of the time no harm is > done. Or are you asking us to believe that you > were the perfect mother?...somehow I think not. There are mistakes, and then there is sheer stupidity. Nobody is a perfect mother. However, my mothering skills are not in question here, I think? Most of us, even if we had been so crap as to leave our children alone on previous nights, on being told that our child had cried for an hour (I think) whilst left alone in the dark in a strange room in a foreign country, would not be so cold-hearted as to then leave them alone again. I believe that Mrs Fenn's statement regarding Madeleine's crying is available to read in the McCann files, though I stand to be corrected. > > The theory you present is SPECULATIVE...there is > NO hard evidence. Of course a theory is speculative, that's what a theory is :)) A couple of dogs sniffing > something that can't be seen or measured by > humans...is NOT hard evidence. It needs hard DNA > to have any worth Yes, that is why I have gone out of my way to stress that the evidence is indicative and not conclusive, but it seems that I am banging my head against a brick wall here. and it has been explained to you > why the DNA is useless and can prove nothing. It hasn't proved anything at the moment, no, because the samples were degraded and insufficient markers were found to demonstrate conclusively that it was Madeleine's. It was not demonstrated that it was NOT Madeleine's, however. I > think it's a mystery that will never be solved > until a body is found (either living or deceased) > and there really is no point in pursuing a case > beyond that. Well there have been cases which have been solved without a body, and sometimes cases are solved many years later. We shall just have to wait and see, shan't we.

ontheedge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DJkillaqueen quess you were joking xxxxxx I think she didn't know the words of the song and didn't realise it was a direct quote.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All of which proves NOTHING. > > The McCanns reported Madeleine as missing as soon > as they realised she was missing for sure. How do you know that? > They were under the Police and media spotlight > within days if not hours of the reported > disappearance. Again nothing unusual in that. They were under the media spotlight because they courted the press right from the start. > > The chidren were checked on regularly by the > parents in turn and not left for hours. How do you know that? As they wouldn't return for a reconstruction, there is no way of knowing. And in any case, get your facts right, even the parents didn't claim they were checking them in turn. Those > parents genuinely believed their children were > safe. The intent is more important than you want > to admit How do you know what they believed or what their intent was? (having already decided they killed their > own child and covered it up). I have never said that, please read my posts and remove this statement. > > Not answering questions that can't be answered or > someone is unable to answer does not equate to non > co-operation. The list of questions asked is in the public domain, why not look them up. They were perfectly straightforward questions. Assumption by you based on biased > blogs and news reports that you have read, No, I have made no assumptions, the police files are in the public domain. One of the things this case has opened my eyes to is the total untrustworthiness of articles and comment in the press. as the > actual police interviews are not available for > public inspection in full, nor will be unless > there is a prosecution and court case. You are wrong. They are all available on the internet. The Portuguese system is different. Please get your facts right. > > Also I repeat that when people are bereaved or in > shock (even if it is laced with guilt) they > sometimes do NOT act normally. > > I could go on. In reference to the dogs...there is > NO conclusive DNA evidence (not even worth > mentioning anymore). Have you looked at the videos? Do you think both dogs were wrong? If there had been conclusive DNA evidence there would probably have been arrests by now. And if they DID detect the > death of someone in the apartment there is NO > evidence to link the McCanns to that death (or > indeed any conclusive evidence that it was > Madeleine's death). It is perfectly possible that > a third party WAS involved. I ask you again, please look at the facts. > > That is the problem with your argument. For > everything you list...all of which is just > speculation It is not speculation, please read my posts properly and none of which PROVES anything, No, and that is why there have been no arrests > there is an equally plausible and equally > speculative alternate argument. Which is what, and how is it equally plausible? > > On the leaving children unspuervised....millions > of parents do that every day. They do it to answer > the door, or to take a nap......even. Most people don't leave their children alone night after night to go out drinking. And most people don't "take a nap" when they are supposed to be looking after three children under four. Do you have any experience of children this age, DJKQ?. Some even > leave their children altogether for others to > raise and look after. You have children Sue (you > posted you have a grand-child) - did you have your > children before your eyes for every day of their > first say 13 years of life? I never left a child alone and would never ever do so. > > If the McCanns and their friends thought for one > moment that leaving their children sleeping in > apartments they could clearly see from their > dinner table They could not see inside the apartment where a child could be vomiting, choking or falling. And in any case, the apartments could not be "clearly seen" from their dinner table. for a couple of hours (whilst taking > turns to check on them regularly) It is you who is making assumptions, not me. How do you know they were checked on regularly? They have given inconsistent accounts to the police and refused to return for a reconstruction which would clarify these. would have led > to this they would never have done it. How do you know what the McCanns have done or might have done? They have > paid the ultimate price and I think it's very cold > hearted of you Sue to keep demonising them for > that mistake. I'm not demonising them. I'm interested in finding out what happened to a little girl. Both my brothers work in child protection - why shouldn't I be interested in trying to find out the truth?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- . Your self satisfied > gloating helps not one single person on this > planet. xxxxxxx Can you - seriously - point to anywhere where I've been "gloating"? Or "Self-satisfied"? I'm interested in the case. Full stop. ETA: DJKQ, instead of stating things as fact, please could you at least check them out first. There are plenty of resources on the internet, in fact I have given some links. And please remove your reference to my "saying that they killed their child", when if you read my posts properly you will find I have said nothing of the sort. I don't believe for a minute that they killed their child.

I've only seen The Pogues once, I think it must have been quite soon after they started out, and they were f***ing brilliant. What energy. Their version of Gentleman Soldier still makes me laugh every time I hear it :))

Well you probably wouldn't report someone missing if there was still a body about :-S And actually it's not true to say that their every move was watched afterwards, because they seemed to be constantly going jogging. Chick - you say that people posting on this thread should hang their heads in shame. I think it is the parents who should be hanging their heads in shame. Whatever happened to Madeleine, I believe that the following is not in dispute: The parents left her alone with her younger siblings even after they had been told on a previous night that she had been crying for her father for (I think) over an hour. They did not cooperate with the police investigation. Mrs McCann refused to answer 48 questions put to her by police. The only one she answered was along the lines of "Do you realise that by not answering these questions you are hindering the search for your daughter?", to which she answered "Yes". They went against police advise and publicised Madeleine's distinctive eye defect even when told that this would put her in danger because any abductor, on realising Madeleine would be immediately recognisable, would kill her. Their holiday companion/s attempted to pin Madeleine's disappearance on Robert Murat, a man living near the apartment, hence putting him through hell (I believe that he is currently suing them for their false claims). They refused to return for a reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared, which could have clarified the various inconsistencies in their statements. As a result, the police still do not have a clear idea of the apparent sequence of events. They dissed the police who were trying to find out what had happened to their daughter. They dissed the findings of two separate top British sniffer dogs (yes the DNA etc was too degraded for a conclusive match to be made, but the fact is that both dogs alerted in several places in an apartment from which a child had disappeared and in which nobody else had died, to Madeleine's cuddly toy, and to items of Mrs McCann's clothing) You can actually see a video of the dogs alerting - I will try to find the link to it. When the case was shelved, the McCanns could have requested that it be reopened. There was a window of opportunity in which legally they were able to do that. They didn't. You can read much of the police files online, such as witness statements, though I presume some evidence will have been withheld when the police published the rest. I will try to find the link. And for those who think I should not have started this thread - what is wrong with a society which criticises someone bringing to people's attention facts to counteract the spin of a paid "spokesman" (Clarence Mitchell), rather than criticising the parents who whatever way you look at it failed their little children? Here's one link to a site which has a lot of information: http://www.mccannfiles.com/ Here's a link to videos of the dogs alerting: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html