More money to find missing girl

[AJL308]

PBDirector said:

AJL308 said:

Precisely. Any theory which involves the parents killing their child (accidentally or otherwise) and successfully concocting a convoluted story about abductions and suchlike in order to dispose of the body in a foreign country and maintaining it for well over a decade - let alone roping in multiple other individuals into the plot is fk-witted conspiraloon nonsense of the highest order.

She was either abducted or wandered off. Nut cases who come up with other rubbish are just insulting the memory of the poor child.

Charming! You’ve just insulted a lot of people simply because you disagree with them. That doesn’t seem very civil.

I admire the passion with which you speak about such a topic you find so simple.

It's not simply because I disagree with them. I disagree with them, yes, but I disagree because such theories are so obviously, utterly and ridiculously stupid in the extreme.

If I was disagreeing with the other half because I wanted a 5.0 Mustang and she wanted a Passat I wouldn't say she was a fool because of her preference for a boring car. If she wanted a 1919 Stanley Steam car as a daily driver though then I'd feel perfectly justified in calling her a bat-st fking crazy bint.

The notion that the parents had any part in her death/abduction/disappearance or were involved in hiding her body is a 1919 Stanley Steam car and calling those who push that agenda bat-st crazy fk-wits is entirely reasonable.

[Agammemnon]

timmymagic73 said:

My point is that by their behaviour the McCanns opened up an opportunity for kidnap which I agree would ordinarily be extremely difficult to do.

How unfortunate that the time & place of their doing so coincided with the presence & intention of an abductor. Amazing synchronicity.

[AJL308]

Agammemnon said:

timmymagic73 said:

My point is that by their behaviour the McCanns opened up an opportunity for kidnap which I agree would ordinarily be extremely difficult to do.

How unfortunate that the time & place of their doing so coincided with the presence & intention of an abductor. Amazing synchronicity.

Paedophiles are not particularly rare, unfortunately, and a young child was taken from that area only a few years prior. A child who was proved to have been used for paedophilia as his mother identified him in a siezed recording.

[vonuber]

AJL308 said:

The notion that the parents had any part in her death/abduction/disappearance or were involved in hiding her body is a 1919 Stanley Steam car and calling those who push that agenda bat-st crazy fk-wits is entirely reasonable.

Yeah, apart from the whole leaving 3 kids under 3 unattended because they wanted to be out on the lash instead.

[AJL308]

vonuber said:

AJL308 said:

The notion that the parents had any part in her death/abduction/disappearance or were involved in hiding her body is a 1919 Stanley Steam car and calling those who push that agenda bat-st crazy fk-wits is entirely reasonable.

Yeah, apart from the whole leaving 3 kids under 3 unattended because they wanted to be out on the lash instead.

That's not actually "having a part in it" though, that's just being irresponsible. Which they clearly were and saying so is a rational comment as it can be proved that it happened as no one involved (including the parents and police from two countries) is claiming otherwise.

There is precisely zero evidence to suggest that they killed her or hid her body or that they arranged the scene to facilitate her abduction though. None at all. Nothing. Therefore, anyone who says it happened like that can quite reasonably be referred to as a bat-st crazy nutter.

[Agammemnon]

AJL308 said:

Paedophiles are not particularly rare, unfortunately, and a young child was taken from that area only a few years prior. A child who was proved to have been used for paedophilia as his mother identified him in a siezed recording.

If there's one on every street corner just waiting to pounce then even more reason to not leave them unattended whilst going out on the town. You can't have it both ways.

[The Moose]

AJL308 said:

That's not actually "having a part in it" though, that's just being irresponsible. Which they clearly were and saying so is a rational comment as it can be proved that it happened as no one involved (including the parents and police from two countries) is claiming otherwise.

There is precisely zero evidence to suggest that they killed her or hid her body or that they arranged the scene to facilitate her abduction though. None at all. Nothing. Therefore, anyone who says it happened like that can quite reasonably be referred to as a bat-st crazy nutter.

Woah woah woah there. Easy tiger.

Next you’ll be saying we did land on the moon...and the Earth isn’t flat!

[AJL308]

Agammemnon said:

AJL308 said:

Paedophiles are not particularly rare, unfortunately, and a young child was taken from that area only a few years prior. A child who was proved to have been used for paedophilia as his mother identified him in a siezed recording.

If there's one on every street corner just waiting to pounce then even more reason to not leave them unattended whilst going out on the town. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not defending their leaving the kids unattended. Not at all.

All I am doing is pointing out that there is precisely zero evidence to support any of the conspiracy theories which involve the parents having a hand in it (other than leaving them unattended). If you propose that a particular event happened (or in this case a serious of events) without any actual evidence to support what you are saying then you are an idiot and have no right to complain when people call your sanity into question.

[Oakey]

Gameface said:

Easy? You make it sound like kidnapping someone is a piece of piss.

It isnt.

Oh aye, what've you been up to now

[PBDirector]

AJL308 said:

There is precisely zero evidence to suggest that they killed her or hid her body or that they arranged the scene to facilitate her abduction though. None at all. Nothing. Therefore, anyone who says it happened like that can quite reasonably be referred to as a bat-st crazy nutter.

As an aside, of the three theories you mention at the top of this quote, i can’t recall anyone on this thread seriously suggesting two of them. Namely killing her or enabling an abduction.

Genuine question: to what degree have you looked into the <what little evidence there is>? The reason I ask is, if you’ve read the police files, listened to the podcast, read the opinions of people such as pat brown and reached that conclusion then this would be really interesting to me. Everyone that I’m aware of who has done those things has concluded that there’s zero evidence to support an abduction (plus it’s unlikely in itself) whereas there is evidence that would support alternative theories.

[RB Will]

AJL308 said:

All I am doing is pointing out that there is precisely zero evidence to support any of the conspiracy theories which involve the parents having a hand in it.

Apart from the girl not being there then there is zero evidence of an abduction.

There is a lot more evidence of the parents having done something underhand even if it’s only circumstantial rather than something they can be nailed on.
Just off the top of my head....
Dodgy timelines and rewriting them.
Jemmied but not really shutters.
Only forensic evidence on the route the supposed abductor took was Kate’s.
Kate alerting everyone with “they’ve taken her” Language suggesting she knew who had or she was deliberately trying to hint at an innocent abduction straight off.
Deleting their phone and text records.
Lying to police.
Changing witness statements.
Tapas members arguing over wether they saw and talked to each other on the night or how long they met up.
Messing up the crime scene.
The twins being out of it and refusing to have them looked at or drug tested for months.
Neighbour talking of previous abuse / neglect of the children on the holiday.
Statement from a person who previously vacationed with them stating Gerry and another Tapas member were making sexual comments and gestures about their kids and were in to bathing eachothers kids on a previous holiday.
Kate describing Maddies perfect genitals.
Suing anyone who dares question their version of events.
The dog alerts and uncorroborated DNA, which they have been offered help with and flatly refused.
Refusing to cooperate with the police.
Employing bat st mental investigators who anyone of their intelligence would know was peddling bullst.
10+ years millions spent, hundreds of suspects and sightings, every possible lead investigated all coming up with nothing.
A respected uk policeman saying Operation Grange is bent.
And more I can’t think of right now.

Also interested in the thing I heard the other day about there being more than just the known Tapas group on holiday with them, no idea if that is true, though it came from someone involved with the Met.

[PurpleTurtle]

AJL308 said:

Agammemnon said:

AJL308 said:

Paedophiles are not particularly rare, unfortunately, and a young child was taken from that area only a few years prior. A child who was proved to have been used for paedophilia as his mother identified him in a siezed recording.

If there's one on every street corner just waiting to pounce then even more reason to not leave them unattended whilst going out on the town. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not defending their leaving the kids unattended. Not at all.

All I am doing is pointing out that there is precisely zero evidence to support any of the conspiracy theories which involve the parents having a hand in it (other than leaving them unattended). If you propose that a particular event happened (or in this case a serious of events) without any actual evidence to support what you are saying then you are an idiot and have no right to complain when people call your sanity into question.

What evidence is there of an abduction?

It’s hardly batst crazy to suspect the parents when most homicides of children involve a parent as perpetrator. Standards operating procedure for the PJ and the Met to look at them.

https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000112

[anonymous-user]

PurpleTurtle said:

AJL308 said:

Agammemnon said:

AJL308 said:

Paedophiles are not particularly rare, unfortunately, and a young child was taken from that area only a few years prior. A child who was proved to have been used for paedophilia as his mother identified him in a siezed recording.

If there's one on every street corner just waiting to pounce then even more reason to not leave them unattended whilst going out on the town. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not defending their leaving the kids unattended. Not at all.

All I am doing is pointing out that there is precisely zero evidence to support any of the conspiracy theories which involve the parents having a hand in it (other than leaving them unattended). If you propose that a particular event happened (or in this case a serious of events) without any actual evidence to support what you are saying then you are an idiot and have no right to complain when people call your sanity into question.

What evidence is there of an abduction?

It’s hardly batst crazy to suspect the parents when most homicides of children involve a parent as perpetrator. Standards operating procedure for the PJ and the Met to look at them.

https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000112

It is standard to consider the parents.

However, the Met aren't pursuing that are they?

[Pesty]

RB Will said:

Interesting find of some new, to me anyway possible info.
Whilst rooting around YouTube Finding the clip I previously posted, I came upon a TV interview with a Dr Graham Hill. A criminologist who was sent out to Portugal by the Met.
Dr Hill states straight off in this interview that the McCanns went on holiday to Portugal with 16 friends + children.

So should the Tapas 9 be the Tapas 18? Could these mystery other friends explain Kate shouting “They’ve taken her” like she knew who did?

Or did Dr Hill just mess up his numbers terribly in the interview?

Is this normal? Going on holiday with 16 people.

I’m anti social so it’s seems strange to me but I’ve never heard of it either. I remember reading some other doctor saying how he’s bumped into one of them after not seeing them for years and they ask him to join them on holiday. That seemed odd to me too.

So is it me out of step and everybody just all goes on holiday together.

Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 24th July 23:09

[Gameface]

La Liga said:

t is standard to consider the parents.

However, the Met aren't pursuing that are they?

Suggesting normal procedures are not being adhered to?

[PurpleTurtle]

La Liga said:

t is standard to consider the parents.

However, the Met aren't pursuing that are they?

Nope, which is all the more strange, if only to completely eliminate them.

As things stand the PJ think they are involved, the Met don’t so it’s no wonder we’re several years down the line, no closer to solving her disappearance.

[4Q]

AJL308 said:

There is precisely zero evidence to suggest that she was abducted by a stranger despite Kate arranging the scene to make it look so. None at all. Nothing. Therefore, anyone who says it happened like that can quite reasonably be referred to as a bat-st crazy nutter.

Edited for accuracy

[anonymous-user]

Gameface said:

La Liga said:

t is standard to consider the parents.

However, the Met aren't pursuing that are they?

Suggesting normal procedures are not being adhered to?

Yes.

I see no reason why the Met wouldn't treat the parents as suspects if the evidence led them there.

To work around why they wouldn't it adds yet another conspiracy layer to the existing ones.

PurpleTurtle said:

Nope, which is all the more strange, if only to completely eliminate them.

They may have been eliminated based of the evidence the Met received when they were involved (and continue to remain so as they gather more).

[timmymagic73]

Agammemnon said:

timmymagic73 said:

My point is that by their behaviour the McCanns opened up an opportunity for kidnap which I agree would ordinarily be extremely difficult to do.

How unfortunate that the time & place of their doing so coincided with the presence & intention of an abductor. Amazing synchronicity.

This thread escalated quickly overnight!

You're missing the point. The abductors got lucky with Maddie. She was identified, watched (probably along with a number of other kids in the area), located and then left unsupervised in an unlocked room right on the edge of the resort with the parents all drinking in a public place some distance away. For a number of nights in a row in a recognisable pattern.

If you wait and plan long enough then surely the odds go in your favour eventually. If it hadn't been Maddie that day of the week, it might have been another small child the following week - or the week after that, etc, or no children at all in that resort or any other location all year. This is why children don't go missing in this way very often, because the chance of an opportunity for abduction is incredibly slim.

Edited by timmymagic73 on Thursday 25th July 08:43

[zygalski]

Agreed. It wasn't the first time that they left her alone to go to the restaurant, was it?
If it was, then it's obviously far more suspicious.
The apartment & parents could have easily been previously observed.