are you a friend of the McCannsive seen Kate interact with her daughter at Luton airport - pretty sure they were going to Portugal, my understanding is that they go back and forth frequently to keep the case alive and ongoing. This was a couple of years ago.
they seemed pretty warm with each other, she’s a teen now. They were shopping together like any regular mother/daughter - for what it’s worth
LOL noare you a friend of the McCanns
maybe invest in reading the case files!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.
Where can these be read?maybe invest in reading the case files!
Isn’t that a little condescending?maybe invest in reading the case files!
google McCann pj case filesWhere can these be read?
no just my opinion! I'm entitled to one just like you!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?
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.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?
sure. I try to make my opinions informed ones.google McCann pj case files
no just my opinion! I'm entitled to one just like you!
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.ok… here goes
1. the arguido stuff - I’m not sure what you’re saying or what your point is here? Because the police named a suspect your logical conclusion is that they therefore must’ve been following all lines of enquiry? They arrested and search the premises of Robert Murat which I think is what you’re referring to, all while using some very suspect techniques. Aka: Using unauthorised surveillance against him... taking him out for a drink in the hopes of getting a drunk confession. A tactic that frankly, is deeply unethical and breaks international human rights law. Yes, really. If Murat HAD killed maddie (he didn’t), the evidence could very well have been made total inadmissible because of how the police collected it. That’s how bad it was. Arresting someone else under dubious circumstances, doesn’t equate to following all reasonable lines of enquiry.
2. Using tracker dogs isn’t a line of enquiry… it might provide a line of enquiry but it isn’t a LoI itself. It’s intelligence gathering. Cars and Lorries were being stopped but this, again, not a LoI (and the process was weak and began too late). None of those things are lines of enquiry… they are procedural. Lines of enquiry are questions you are trying to answer - using dogs, searches etc are simply the methodology you are using to answer those questions.
3. Inconsistencies in witness accounts aren’t unusual, nor are they indicative of guilt. It’s normal for witnesses to have slightly different version of events. It’s normal for people to change details occasionally in their story. It’s normal to misremember during a time period of high stress. Witnesses NEVER have the exact same account in every detail. That would indicate dishonesty if they did a because it isn’t normal behaviour.
If a witness changes their story significantly = dodgy
Changing smaller details = normal
yes, technically they did contaminate the crime scene by virtue of being there, but there is zero real evidence that they purposefully did so. And it was never their responsible to preserve it as such.
blood wasn’t found in the car
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.Now what about the Leicester Police Force who didn't bother sending the Gasper statements to Portamao until after the McCanns were safely back in Rothley! strange how this ineptness fails to get mentioned!
„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.„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.
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.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.
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.„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?
You wrote „none of it was even explicitly sexual“, therefore I wondered.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
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 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.
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.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?
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 opinionthe 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.
Why do you think this?I think she could be held somewhere still alive
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 laterWhy do you think this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?