Sue

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" :)

I can preview posts OK but when I click on "post message" nothing happens. Not all the time (well, if it is, I won't be able to post this!) Just me??

I take complete responsibility for everything I have posted on this thread.

- I don?t know who has contributed to the Wikipedia overview of this case, but I would not take even an up-to-date account on Wikipedia as being necessarily accurate, on any subject at all. I never use it, for that reason. ?- DJKQ?s post on 27 December at 02.54pm (sorry, but easier to do this than make direct quotes when there are so many posts involved) says ?there are other factors to support the theory of abduction ? like the burglary that used a key and the speck of DNA found in the bedroom (by the dogs) that did not belong to the McCanns or their three children. I don?t know what the reference to a key is about, since the McCanns claimed that an abductor got into the apartment through an unlocked door. I don?t know what this other speck of DNA was, or what its significance was supposed to be - perhaps someone could enlighten me. However I understand (and this may be either incorrect or irrelevant, as I don?t know the source of the DNA) that the McCanns allowed their holiday friends and hotel staff to tramp around the apartment before the arrival of the police. Also ? presumably people had stayed there before the McCanns. ?- In the same post, DJKQ says ?My view is that there is some truth to the criticism that Portuguese Police instinctively wanted to avoid yet another embarrassment regarding paedophile rings and abduction ?.; and so preferred to look for a way to implicate the McCanns if they could, but in doing so neglected to run the investigation properly ?..? That?s quite a ?criticism?, DJKQ. What?s your evidence for it? Do you think the British police, who were working with the Portuguese police and in fact brought in the dogs, were also ?looking for a way to implicate the McCanns??

OK going to try it bit by bit. Thanks Alan. Hope you all had a great Christmas, as I did :) Picking up on some points made in my absence - So far as I can recall, I have never made any personal or abusive remarks to DJKQ on this forum, and to the best of my knowledge I have never met her. I therefore have no idea what is going on, but perhaps she could shed some light on why I appear to upset her so much. - Sr Amaral?s surname is Amaral, not ?Almara?. - Yes of course corroborative evidence was needed for the dogs? findings, as I clearly stated in one of my initial posts. That is obvious and has never been in doubt. The fact remains that one of the most highly trained and highly successful sniffer dogs in the world, a dog who had never had a false alert in 200 previous cases, alerted in various places connected with the McCanns, and did not alert anywhere else. A second dog also independently alerted. As I said previously, this is indicative and not conclusive, and is not evidence which could be used in court.. The dogs? alerting was just one of the factors which appeared to point towards death and not abduction being the more likely .

I'm trying to post on this thread but can't. Not sure if it's a formatting problem (I copied and pasted from Word) or whether the post is too long. I may have to try dividing it into several posts, which I was trying to avoid :-S

The Crying Game - Dave Berry

I'm unable to make a post in the lounge. Just testing whether this will post. ETA: It did, and whatever was going on seems to be OK now - thanks for your help Sean.

I'm leaving this now and going off to have a lovely Christmas. To all of you - have a lovely Christmas too. xx

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Despite all the cr@p, I'm finding this thread > quite interesting in two respects. > > Firstly, I'm really trying to understand the > motivation for starting it; xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I've explained in my OP and then in quite a detailed response to Bellenden Belle (I think) why I started it. Not trying to be rude, but what is it that you don't understand in those posts? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Secondly, the idea that the McCanns are > responsible even if their child was abducted by a > stranger, because of their 'reckless' behaviour, > seems to me very representative of a certain > strand of current thinking i.e. that the failure > to prevent harm occuring (even where the risk is > very remote) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The risk of abduction was extremely remote, yes. The risk of vomiting, choking, falling or wandering out of an unlocked apartment was rather higher, I should say, wouldn't you? Not to mention the emotional distress caused on waking up, calling or crying for their parents, and finding themselves - by themselves. That's why most parents don't leave their little children alone. Isn't it? But I've already pointed this out on the thread, so no doubt will be accused of repetition and going round in circles.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t think people are attacking Sue for having an unpopular view (for what it?s worth at a basic level, she thinks something is fishy in the whole business and so do I, if pushed. Really hard.) DJKQ might be doing her usual dog-with?bone thing and being OTT with Sue (makes me wonder if there is history there between them?) ? I?ve been there and have some sympathy with Sue on that level xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sorry I missed this bit out when I posted, have edited it. The only history I am aware of between DJKQ and myself is that she appeared to be doing her best to have our folk events at DHFC closed down because the club had thought they had a late licence when in fact they hadn't (they now have). She made some rather nasty personal remarks to me at the time which she then edited out. She has today sent me a PM, the contents of which are frankly risible. I must admit I was slightly tempted to post it on here, but as it's a PM I will respect that. Also I do not want to get dragged into other people's games. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > But in general terms people have tried to point > out it?s a bit creepy to have THIS level of > interest on a topic. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Is it? I once shared an office with a guy who had a whole room in his house devoted to his collection of pictures of buses. Now that is creepy! Who can say why one becomes interested in something? FWIW, my family also agrees my interest in this case is a bit over the top :), but I do feel strongly about it for reasons I've already stated. Also, when I first started following the case, I became interested partly because it was like a real-life detective story, and partly, ironically enough, because I was interested in the various aspects of human nature displayed on the forums discussing it. And also because - as I have said - I became aware for probably the first time in my life (how naive is that) of the distorted information peddled by the press. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To say she was "set upon" is > innacurate and over-emotive. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I didn't feel I was "set upon", however I did feel a lot of people were behaving in a rather childish knee-jerk way instead of addressing the substantive points. I don't necessarily exclude myself but I did try (and possibly failed) not to descend to the personal insult level. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > It?s one case in many many many. It made the > headlines for some of the reasons outlined. To > have SUCH an interst in it so many years later? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It has been kept constantly in the news by the parents themselves and by their "spokesman". The wikileak was also only very recently publicised, as was the overturning on appeal of the ban on the publication of Sr Amaral's book in Portugal. Though the UK press were noticeably less quick to report that then they were to report on the original ban. In fact I'm not sure it's actually been reported at all in this country. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > And by such an interest don?t just mean on a > personal level ? I mean to the point of getting > all upset when people suggest it might be a bit > much > That is what people are struggling with here xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Where have I got "all upset"? I thought some of the comments were downright offensive and one bordered on obscene, but fair enough, it's a forum and if I post on it I accept that some people are not going to be able to debate in an adult and reasoned way. I did get upset though when a comment was posting saying that I had said something absolutely vile which I hadn't said, and then the person in question refused to remove the comment. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Also by using your logic any nitwit could express > profoundly ?unpopular? views (and you can image > some of the ones that would set you off, right?) > and you would expect the general readership to be > passive? I don?t think so xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx There's a difference between debating the subject matter itself and putting forward a different viewpoint in a reasoned way, and being personally offensive. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > So a woman courted publicity by going public with > her views, seeking like minded support, and was > shocked to find that not everyone agrees with her, > and with some people taking against her? > > Now does that sound like anyone else involved in > this whole sorry business?? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As I've tried to explain, it is not the fact that people disagree, it is the fact that they are not disagreeing on questions of fact, but disagreeing about the fact that I have posted at all.

louisiana Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In what way are you putting your head above the > parapet? You are not involved in the case in any > shape or form. > xxxxxxxxx Because as amply demonstrated by some of the responses to this thread, I am saying things which a lot of people (it would appear) would prefer not to be said, so are shooting me down for it. It would make for an easier life if I didn't do that.