More money to find missing girl
Discussion
Biggy Stardust said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Agree, at least half of those questions have obvious reasonable explanations without need to Google. I'm pretty sure five minutes with Google would find reasonable explanations to all the others.
Why did they leave 3 kids in an unlocked room & how did they get them all to sleep at the same time?BikeBikeBIke said:
Muzzer79 said:
skwdenyer said:
A touch unclear what this exculpatory evidence is. The parents have, unfortunately, always been firmly in the crosshairs.
- Why did they leave the children alone?
- Why was the apartment left unlocked?
- Why did they delete all their call histories? (hardly a sign of innocence)
- Why did they refuse to answer questions?
- What about the shutter?
- Why did they refuse drugs tests on the remaining children?
- Why was one of their first calls to set up press / PR?
I have no evidence they killed their child, or that they covered up an accidental death. But I think there are enough unanswered questions to make it every hard to say with conviction that the parents had no part, and have no case at all to answer.
Given how many people are convicted each year on basically circumstantial evidence, I simply don't see how you can their case is somehow iron-clad.
Like any consipiracy theory, there are always questions and most of these have been debunked or are explainable without coming to the conclusion that they killed their daughter.- Why did they leave the children alone?
- Why was the apartment left unlocked?
- Why did they delete all their call histories? (hardly a sign of innocence)
- Why did they refuse to answer questions?
- What about the shutter?
- Why did they refuse drugs tests on the remaining children?
- Why was one of their first calls to set up press / PR?
I have no evidence they killed their child, or that they covered up an accidental death. But I think there are enough unanswered questions to make it every hard to say with conviction that the parents had no part, and have no case at all to answer.
Given how many people are convicted each year on basically circumstantial evidence, I simply don't see how you can their case is somehow iron-clad.
Refusing to answer questions is one that comes up regularly. I can assure you that if my daughter was missing and I was arrested as a suspect in a foreign country, whether I was guilty or not, I wouldn't say a word to any of them. I wouldn't give them the time of day - "no comment" to everything.
As for leaving the children in an unlocked apartment, I'm afraid I *do* subscribe to the view that a prosecution for neglect wasn't out of the question, never mind anything else.
Neither of those things is evidence of murder or conspiracy. But neither is it odd that it points suspicion.
The dog in the apartment is also troubling.
Does that make any of it a "conspiracy theory"? No, of course not. But it does make the "of course they're innocent" cries a touch unsupportable, too; there are just a few too many oddities for that.
BikeBikeBIke said:
....and that relies on parents who have accidently killed their child thinking "Let's cover this up." which would be somewhat unusual!
Everything is unusual. The child vanished without a trace. Once you overcome the temptation to rule stuff out because it is unusual (because we've already jumped that shark, as it were) then everything else is perforce on the table.BikeBikeBIke said:
My bet is she wandered out alone, fell in a hole in a building site and got covered up before anyone noticed. See also Ben Needham.
That's not unreasonable. cf neglect.I think the thing with this case is there is so much that is on the surface rather odd and not “reasonably” explained but no smoking gun on either side.
Could probably write out a page on what looks a bit suspect about the parents and their mates etc but then you hit a brick wall when it comes to how would they have hidden her so well.
On the other side you basically have the fact she left the apartment somehow and more recently know there was possibly a dodgy sex pest in the area.
Though you could probably throw a dart at a map and there will be someone like that in the area.
Could probably write out a page on what looks a bit suspect about the parents and their mates etc but then you hit a brick wall when it comes to how would they have hidden her so well.
On the other side you basically have the fact she left the apartment somehow and more recently know there was possibly a dodgy sex pest in the area.
Though you could probably throw a dart at a map and there will be someone like that in the area.
skwdenyer said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Muzzer79 said:
skwdenyer said:
A touch unclear what this exculpatory evidence is. The parents have, unfortunately, always been firmly in the crosshairs.
- Why did they leave the children alone?
- Why was the apartment left unlocked?
- Why did they delete all their call histories? (hardly a sign of innocence)
- Why did they refuse to answer questions?
- What about the shutter?
- Why did they refuse drugs tests on the remaining children?
- Why was one of their first calls to set up press / PR?
I have no evidence they killed their child, or that they covered up an accidental death. But I think there are enough unanswered questions to make it every hard to say with conviction that the parents had no part, and have no case at all to answer.
Given how many people are convicted each year on basically circumstantial evidence, I simply don't see how you can their case is somehow iron-clad.
Like any consipiracy theory, there are always questions and most of these have been debunked or are explainable without coming to the conclusion that they killed their daughter.- Why did they leave the children alone?
- Why was the apartment left unlocked?
- Why did they delete all their call histories? (hardly a sign of innocence)
- Why did they refuse to answer questions?
- What about the shutter?
- Why did they refuse drugs tests on the remaining children?
- Why was one of their first calls to set up press / PR?
I have no evidence they killed their child, or that they covered up an accidental death. But I think there are enough unanswered questions to make it every hard to say with conviction that the parents had no part, and have no case at all to answer.
Given how many people are convicted each year on basically circumstantial evidence, I simply don't see how you can their case is somehow iron-clad.
Refusing to answer questions is one that comes up regularly. I can assure you that if my daughter was missing and I was arrested as a suspect in a foreign country, whether I was guilty or not, I wouldn't say a word to any of them. I wouldn't give them the time of day - "no comment" to everything.
As for leaving the children in an unlocked apartment, I'm afraid I *do* subscribe to the view that a prosecution for neglect wasn't out of the question, never mind anything else.
Neither of those things is evidence of murder or conspiracy. But neither is it odd that it points suspicion.
The dog in the apartment is also troubling.
Does that make any of it a "conspiracy theory"? No, of course not. But it does make the "of course they're innocent" cries a touch unsupportable, too; there are just a few too many oddities for that.
BikeBikeBIke said:
....and that relies on parents who have accidently killed their child thinking "Let's cover this up." which would be somewhat unusual!
Everything is unusual. The child vanished without a trace. Once you overcome the temptation to rule stuff out because it is unusual (because we've already jumped that shark, as it were) then everything else is perforce on the table.BikeBikeBIke said:
My bet is she wandered out alone, fell in a hole in a building site and got covered up before anyone noticed. See also Ben Needham.
That's not unreasonable. cf neglect.Regarding the call histories, presumably the phone company could provide the details of calls made so that makes no difference either way. Refusal of drug tests, I've no idea, what reason did the McCanns give? EDIT: I've just googled and it seems the McCanns didn't refuse a test - or at least there's no credible evidence they did. And frankly, is it plausible that parents suspected of drugging their kids would be *allowed* to refuse drug tests? END OF EDIT
I also agree with the logic that whatever happened was unusual.
The McCanns have kept it in the public eye. No reason to do that if they hid the body. I doubt they had time to conceal a body so well that it's never been found on the evening and the idea they collected and drove a corpse about in a hire car with the media all over them is farcical.
If the McCanns had opportunity to hide a body I'm pretty sure the Portuguese Police could have cobbled together some kind of case even it it was circumstantial. Ergo I suspect they didn't.
(I *have* read the Portuguese detectives book which was available online.)
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 31st March 09:34
bikebikebike said:
The McCanns have kept it in the public eye. No reason to do that if they hid the body. I doubt they had time to conceal a body so well that it's never been found on the evening and the idea they collected and drove a corpse about in a hire car with the media all over them is farcical.
Yes, but their explanation about that also was odd. "Spoiled meat and dirty nappies" i recall.RB Will said:
Could probably write out a page on what looks a bit suspect about the parents and their mates etc but then you hit a brick wall when it comes to how would they have hidden her so well.
On the other side you basically have the fact she left the apartment somehow and more recently know there was possibly a dodgy sex pest in the area.
Though you could probably throw a dart at a map and there will be someone like that in the area.
For me this is really about how did she leave the apartment. Once she left the apartment anything could have happened.On the other side you basically have the fact she left the apartment somehow and more recently know there was possibly a dodgy sex pest in the area.
Though you could probably throw a dart at a map and there will be someone like that in the area.
The unusual thing here is the disappearance, not the leaving the apartment. A three year old wandering off is so common it wouldn't even be noteworthy. A parent's immediate reaction to a dead child being to perfectly hide the body without their friends suspecting - that's less common.
So I'm pretty comfortable assuming she wandered off as by far the most likely possibility. After that who knows, my bet is that she fell in a hole on a building site and got covered up but there are other possibilities.
Obvs if the McCanns had been in the apartment alone with the kids rather than out with friends, and if they'd had all night unobserved that would change my view.
budgie smuggler said:
bikebikebike said:
The McCanns have kept it in the public eye. No reason to do that if they hid the body. I doubt they had time to conceal a body so well that it's never been found on the evening and the idea they collected and drove a corpse about in a hire car with the media all over them is farcical.
Yes, but their explanation about that also was odd. "Spoiled meat and dirty nappies" i recall.There is no way they put a corpse in a temporary hiding place and then later, under the glare of publicity, drove it to a really good hiding place.
Also, it would be a lot better if people quote sources when they state their "facts".
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 31st March 10:17
BikeBikeBIke said:
The McCanns have kept it in the public eye. No reason to do that if they hid the body. I doubt they had time to conceal a body so well that it's never been found on the evening and the idea they collected and drove a corpse about in a hire car with the media all over them is farcical.
If the McCanns had opportunity to hide a body I'm pretty sure the Portuguese Police could have cobbled together some kind of case even it it was circumstantial. Ergo I suspect they didn't.
Have they though? (Kept it in the public eye) If the McCanns had opportunity to hide a body I'm pretty sure the Portuguese Police could have cobbled together some kind of case even it it was circumstantial. Ergo I suspect they didn't.
I haven't seen any interviews with them for years, possibly since the 10th anniversary in 2017.
The media keep it in the public eye because people are interested and it would be an enormous story if it was solved.
But the fact remains that the sequence of events that would have had to happen for the McCanns to dispose of the body of their daughter in such a way that it's never found are so massively outrageous they are implausible.
For one thing, there's their friends. For this scenario to be plausible, at least some of them would have had to be in on it. Can you imagine being on holiday and a couple you're friends with drop into the conversation that they've killed their daughter accidentally and want you to help cover it up?
This is real life, not a BBC drama.......it's implausible.
BikeBikeBIke said:
My bet is she wandered out alone, fell in a hole in a building site and got covered up before anyone noticed. See also Ben Needham.
Possible, but knowing the area very well, I'd rule that out as unlikely. There was no building work happening in the immediate vicinity. I've included a map below from Google Earth, and have circled the infamous apartment in green, and pointed to the gate in/out in green. The road the gate opens on to runs downhill to the Ocean Club, the entrance I've pointed to in red, and have circled in red where the parents were having dinner.
If the toddler got out of the gate, its unlikely they would turn and walk uphill, especially given she'd likely have been able to hear her parents at that point across the pool. If she walked downhill, she'd walk past the entrance to the Ocean club where her folks were, then 40 yards further down the hill is the side entrance to Baptista's supermarket, someone would have spotted her.
Dr Interceptor said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
My bet is she wandered out alone, fell in a hole in a building site and got covered up before anyone noticed. See also Ben Needham.
Possible, but knowing the area very well, I'd rule that out as unlikely. There was no building work happening in the immediate vicinity. But that's not critical. I'm merely arguing it's quite likely an unattended child to walked out of an unlocked flat. And if that happened it opens up all sorts of possibilities for the disappearance.
...and I'm saying I think it's more likely than a parent finding a dead child and immediately thinking they need to cover it up. (And then successfully doing so - all without their mates suspecting!)
Muzzer79 said:
Have they though? (Kept it in the public eye)
They did for several years.From Wiki:
Kate made her own check of 5A at around 22:00
At around 22:10, Gerry sent Matthew Oldfield to ask the resort's reception desk to call the police, and at 22:30 the resort activated its missing-child search protocol.
Doesnt seem like any slack to hide a body so well it's never found.
Checking the map the sea's not that far away, maybe she ended up in there.
...and I've just checked and the McCanns didnt have a car on the night she went missing. She her body was hidden on foot? It's ludicrous.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 31st March 11:07
BikeBikeBIke said:
According to "Flat Earth News" by Nick Davies there was a ton of building going on nearby, including holes for piles. If she'd fallen in one of those it would explain everything.
There was nearby yes, but not in the immediate vicinity as I said... she'd have to walk around 400 metres turning uphill three times and cross the M537-1 which is the road to/from the beach front, without being spotted or picked up, which is possible of course. BikeBikeBIke said:
So I'm pretty comfortable assuming she wandered off as by far the most likely possibility. After that who knows, my bet is that she fell in a hole on a building site and got covered up but there are other possibilities.
Obvs if the McCanns had been in the apartment alone with the kids rather than out with friends, and if they'd had all night unobserved that would change my view.
I’m no expert on young child behaviour but is that the likely outcome? Would she just go and wander randomly, into a presumably dark, lonely building site then manage to fall into a hole, and be hidden so well in that hole that the workmen there wouldn’t notice her there before filling in? Obvs if the McCanns had been in the apartment alone with the kids rather than out with friends, and if they'd had all night unobserved that would change my view.
I’d have thought if she got out of the apartment the most likely place to go would be towards familiarity, presumably the visible bright lights and music and chatting of the bar area where she had probably been during the day. I don’t know if young kids work like this though?
On your latter paragraph if I remember correctly there is some fuzziness over timelines and possibly anything from an hour or so up to maybe a day since an independent witness saw her or she was documented somewhere, no photos, something about crèche records being fudged or staff there giving a different story to parents?
I’d have to spend some time properly reacquainting myself with it before being sure on any of this though.
If I have learned anything from all of the root cause analysis training drummed into me over the years it is that you have to consider everything and be able to justify why a certain element can be discounted. You can’t just go with, I feel x is most likely, never mind about y.
For example her just waking up and wandering off is plausible, almost likely, in isolation.
If you take all the info into account eg, fuzzy timeline, possibly doped kid, dogs alerting to injury/ death in the apartment, parents lying about a break in, Kate shouting “they have taken her”, parents and friends not being able to get a timeline straight, one of the friends having to change her witness statement so that it matched up with Gerry’s etc.
Whatever the truth is you have to admit that the parents and mates have done some very odd stuff which has made them look iffy as hell, I expect in many instances could have lead to a conviction. Which if they are innocent would be tragic. They would be the most guilty looking innocent people ever.
RB Will said:
I’d have thought if she got out of the apartment the most likely place to go would be towards familiarity,
Well that would be to the sea where presumably they'd be walking most days. Sounds like a good theory to me. Into the sea, never seen again.RB Will said:
If I have learned anything from all of the root cause analysis training drummed into me over the years it is that you have to consider everything and be able to justify why a certain element can be discounted.
Well I'm going to discount someone *on foot* hiding a body in 10 minute slot during which they also raised the alarm! And I'm discounting the McCann's collecting a body from a hiding place and moving it somewhere else once it became a media event and the Portuguese police were watching them. And I'd rule out the friends being in on it.Beyond that I'd rule nothing out, but I think the most plausible theory is a 3yo girls waking up - as she had the previous night - and wandering out of the flat.
RB Will said:
Whatever the truth is you have to admit that the parents and mates have done some very odd stuff which has made them look iffy as hell,
Why would a guilty person do or say something to make themselves look iffy any more than an innocent person? Plus as soon as you check the iffy actions and words they seem to be fiction. ...and are you saying the friends are in on it? Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 31st March 11:24
BikeBikeBIke said:
RB Will said:
I’d have thought if she got out of the apartment the most likely place to go would be towards familiarity,
Well that would be to the sea where presumably they'd be walking most days. Sounds like a good theory to me. Into the sea, never seen again.RB Will said:
If I have learned anything from all of the root cause analysis training drummed into me over the years it is that you have to consider everything and be able to justify why a certain element can be discounted.
Well I'm going to discount someone *on foot* hiding a body in 10 minute slot during which they also raised the alarm! And I'm discounting the McCann's collecting a body from a hiding place and moving it somewhere else once it became a media event and the Portuguese police were watching them. And I'd rule out the friends being in on it.Beyond that I'd rule nothing out, but I think the most plausible theory is a 3yo girls waking up - as she had the previous night - and wandering out of the flat.
RB Will said:
Whatever the truth is you have to admit that the parents and mates have done some very odd stuff which has made them look iffy as hell,
Why would a guilty person do or say something to make themselves look iffy any more than an innocent person? Plus as soon as you check the iffy actions and words they seem to be fiction. ...and are you saying the friends are in on it? Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 31st March 11:24
skwdenyer said:
As another poster has said, was it 10 minutes? Or was it 24 hours? The canonical timeline of sightings of the child are not IIRC as iron-clad as you seem to think.
As far as we know it was 10 minutes. (During which the alarm was raised.)It was not 24 hours, and if it was that would destroy every current theory of the case!
BikeBikeBIke said:
She her body was hidden on foot? It's ludicrous.
You said yourself there were open pile holes locally, and I know these were around 400 metres waking distance away. Wouldn't a fit tennis playing chap been able to carry a four year old 400 metres? How long do you think that would realistically take? Given 10 minutes could have been 20 minutes just as easily, I think there was plenty of time.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Also, it would be a lot better if people quote sources when they state their "facts".
The facts are we don't know and something very unlikely has happened. Using public-donated funds to pay the mortgage (when already comfortably off) is a terrible look! Lots of other similar things have niggled people but the parents being weird or behaving strangely does not make them guilty.
Whatever happened to that poor girl, the parents ultimately are to blame for behaving in a manner that allowed it. I imagine they live with unimaginable guilt. Perhaps if there had been some outward display of this and/or remorse at the time (not later after you realise you look like an awful parent) the public's perception of them would be kinder.
Dr Interceptor said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
She her body was hidden on foot? It's ludicrous.
You said yourself there were open pile holes locally, and I know these were around 400 metres waking distance away. Wouldn't a fit tennis playing chap been able to carry a four year old 400 metres? How long do you think that would realistically take? Given 10 minutes could have been 20 minutes just as easily, I think there was plenty of time.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff