are you a friend of the McCanns
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
LOL no
I just 1. Worked in law enforcement and 2. Don’t believe or read tabloid journalism.
I was a teen when it all kicked off and didn’t read too much about it at the time, which is why maybe it all looks so ridiculous to me with the benefit of hindsight.
maybe invest in reading the case files!
Where can these be read?
Isn’t that a little condescending?
I have - where in my posts, have I shown a lack of knowledge or understanding of the case files? Or of police procedures? Do my responses not focus on the facts of the case, as opposed to speculative headlines?
Which part of my post gave you the impression I hadn’t read the case files?
google McCann pj case files
no just my opinion! I'm entitled to one just like you!
Last edited:
Your posts are sensible and informative cee-bee. However, I'm sure you've noticed but there is a sizeable proportion of people in this thread that prefer to concoct a conspiracy theory. I often wonder why people do this and I think generally it is because people don't like the unknown so they fill in the gaps with a conspiracy theory. Or perhaps sometimes the real explanation isn't particularly exciting so they formulate a more interesting version of events. It's a consequence of the internet age unfortunately. Truth decay is a real thing.
sure. I try to make my opinions informed ones.
If she was kidnapped there would have been a lead by now. All the supposed leads were red flags. Like Robert Murat who was set up, The pweirdo in prison. They blamed everyone they could. The police didn’t investigate a kidnapping because there was no proof she was taken. If they had done such a poor job then the U.K. police would have take action. I’m not sure what files some people are reading but they’re clearly not the same ones as I and others have read. If the mccanns and friends hadn’t contaminated the crime scene the police may have got different results.
I made absolutely no comment about Robert Murat‘s guilt or innocence … I merely pointed out you were wrong to say the police had only looked at the holiday group.
my Comment about tracker dogs was only that they were used, to highlight again the fact the police on the ground in real time sere looking at multiple scenarios and using the tools that any police force would use to investigate them simultaneously … are you saying that were a child to go missing in UK that scent tracker dogs wouldn’t be used or cars searched. You can’t say things weren’t investigated when the tools to investigate them were being employed.
surely inconsistencies in statements - especially with regard to timelines and when the event under investigation took place need clarifying and investigating robustly and if this affends anyone, then that’s just a shame?
The UK press misreporting of the case was phenomenal and the cause of many of the issues … not least with what arguido status actually means.
Last edited:
the gasper statement has come up a few times here and sorry, but evidentially? They offer little to nothing. It isn’t some big smoking gun. It doesn’t contain much by way of facts or evidence. In fact it probably falls under hear say. If they were disregarded or weren’t paid much attention, it’s because they aren’t especially evidential or relevant.
K gasper provided a statement in which she mentioned overhearing a conversation between G McCann and D Payne.
she thought she heard them talking about Madeline but she isn’t sure it was Madeline.
she thought she saw them gesturing and she attached sexual connotations to it.
she couldn’t specify where this was supposed to have happened so, can’t be corroborated.
fine, that’s Dr Gasper’s view of events. She
Vaguely remembered Gerry and David speaking and felt it was inappropriate. She could be completely right. I’m not making a case for or against how accurate or truthful this statement was according to Dr Gasper.
but…none of it is factual. None of it was even explicitly sexual. She overheard a conversation. She can’t relay exactly what was said it even exactly who it was about. It wasn’t said to her directly. She can’t say when it took place or where. Her statements are all over the place, and so aren’t of much use to any investigation.
A couple were seen carrying a child at the side of a road in the dark it was a passer by going to work that seen them, and a husband and wife said in the Netflix documentary they seen Madeleine ( in a petrol station I think it was) with a man but at the time they didn't know she was missing ..I believe them
I think she could be held somewhere still alive
I think she could be held somewhere still alive
„When he mentioned „this“ he sucked on his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.„
Copied from the Gaspar files. This is not explicitly sexual to you? Sincere question: which other way of interpreting this do you see there?
I know, I didn’t say you did. But you mentioned that they’d pursued other lines of enquiry and that’s what I thought you meant, I said i wasn’t sure what your point was.
you said that tracking dogs were demonstrating they followed other lines of enquiry, I pointed out that this indicative of following lines of enquiry.
Re statements…sort of. It depends on what the inconsistency is. Witness statements and interviews are a process of trying to build a timeline, establish facts and gather evidence. Peoples’ testimonies are evidential in and of themselves.
This was a group that had been drinking and relaxing, is it important to try and establish a timeline of events as best as possible? Yes
If there are some inconsistencies does this indicate guilt? Not really.
I’m not adding my opinion on whether it was sexual or not, the comment wasn’t about ascertaining whether or not it was accepted this was sexual. That’s not the arguement or point I was making.
my point was it was an opinion on something she thought she heard - making it wholly unreliable
You wrote „none of it was even explicitly sexual“, therefore I wondered.
But still I don’t understand your point. She was sat between Gerry and David, so you could expect her to be able to repeat it correctly, wouldn’t you?
And I didn’t say it did … but it seems they got the hump when the police didn’t believe them because they said so. As far as I can see, that is a case of it’s not actually about you. It’s about the person missing.
I would assume in a missing person case, the first thing to establish is when the person was actually last seen? From their statements Gerry saw her at five past 9, Matt went in the apartment at 9.30 but didn’t see her and Kate went at 10 and it all kicked off. so that's a starting point of an hour? This was then condensed into a 5 minute window by the holiday group insisting that the person seen by Jane Tanner at 9.10/15 and was used as the definitive in all of the programmes and reconstructions they were involved in. Which is their prerogative, but surely you can’t expect the investigators to completely discount the other 55 minutes just because you’ve got a bee in your bonnet? Especially when it turns out this person eventually came forward with the pyjama’s his child was wearing and that he had carefully preserved., just in case. I would assume that if the investigation had put all of their eggs in the 5 minute window, which turns out to be incorrect, they would be getting even more brickbats than they are now?
my point is.. it isn’t reliable or factual. It contains opinions, not facts. Reading it, it’s barely a proper witness statement to be honest. It’s not evidential in the slightest. Her statement really doesn’t offer much to the case. Ergo that’s probably why the police didn’t pick up on it much.
your interpretation is they offer nothing, although they were deemed important enough to be sent to Portugal after the McCanns were back in Rothley, Maybe it had something to do with a British child protection social worker's statement Yvonne Warren Martin, I would suggest other poster's google the Gasper statements and the case files for themselves, and allow them to form their own opinion
Why do you think this?
Because of the couple that seen her with the man in a petrol station, the woman was positive it was Maddie and she's a sensible looking person not someone that's just wanting 5 mins of fame ...look at all the kids that have been taken in the past and been found years later
- Status