More money to find missing girl
Discussion
GreatGranny said:
I know I'll get slated for not reading all the volumes but have the McCann's been asked why they left their children on their own that night (and it seems every night)?
Or do you think the press have been briefed not to specifically asked that?
I'm sure the guilt knowing this would have been prevented if they had taken the children with them or had a baby sitter is something that will never leave them. Even if it doesn't look like they feel any at all.
They've been asked about it several times. Or do you think the press have been briefed not to specifically asked that?
I'm sure the guilt knowing this would have been prevented if they had taken the children with them or had a baby sitter is something that will never leave them. Even if it doesn't look like they feel any at all.
Gerry McCann is on record (it's on the 9.Com.Au podcast, or the Netflix documentary, I forget which as there is a lot of overlap) that "it was very much like dining out in your garden at home"
Except it wasn't. Not unless you own the kind of garden that makes you landed gentry.
It is tiny issues like this that casts the eye of suspicion. The McCanns are/were succesful middle-class professionals. They are the ones who tell people what to do, not the ones who are told. Gerry comes across to me as someone who would be very combative, competitive, would always have to get his own way. He is either too headstrong to say "hands up, we got this wrong, we left our kids unattended, it was bad judgment" which, in my opinion would have garnered them a lot more public support (probably lots of parents thinking "'there but for the grace ...") but he still steadfastly bangs this drum that their childcare arrangements were not in any way lapse. He's either too thick-skulled to grasp that, or there's a more sinister reason to him sticking to his chosen story.
dundarach said:
It's almost impossible to comment on this thread for fear of it being taken down....here goes...
in my opinion no way did anything from that flat get taken out and disposed of at a later date, not with that amount of media around.
To your first point, Im assuming that as long as you state what are facts, and what is your opinion, then our hosts should be ok with it. Whether or not you say something that later gets found by a court to be libellous is another matter.in my opinion no way did anything from that flat get taken out and disposed of at a later date, not with that amount of media around.
To your second point, I recommend you listen to the nine.com.au podcast series where they address this timeline. In my opinion, if we are discussing a hypothetical scenario in which one were removing a body under similar circumstances, I would say the time to do it would be before the press arrived, not after.
If the rumours are true that the Met and PJ are looking at a specific individual as a potential abductor then I am struggling to understand why the offer for the newer and more complex DNA analysis would not be accepted.
If I recall correctly then 2 weeks and no cost could potentially add new information to a cold case. Why would you not do that?
If anyone is to be held to account for this then surely the defence would have the DNA testing done anyway.
If I recall correctly then 2 weeks and no cost could potentially add new information to a cold case. Why would you not do that?
If anyone is to be held to account for this then surely the defence would have the DNA testing done anyway.
Starfighter said:
If the rumours are true that the Met and PJ are looking at a specific individual as a potential abductor then I am struggling to understand why the offer for the newer and more complex DNA analysis would not be accepted.
If I recall correctly then 2 weeks and no cost could potentially add new information to a cold case. Why would you not do that?
If anyone is to be held to account for this then surely the defence would have the DNA testing done anyway.
If the DNA was in a car that Gerry Mc hired weeks after the disappearance, and the new suspect is not Gerry Mc, then the DNA in the car cannot be relevant. Unless by massive coincidence Gerry Mc hired the same car that the new suspect had hired weeks before. If I recall correctly then 2 weeks and no cost could potentially add new information to a cold case. Why would you not do that?
If anyone is to be held to account for this then surely the defence would have the DNA testing done anyway.
Ayahuasca said:
If the DNA was in a car that Gerry Mc hired weeks after the disappearance, and the new suspect is not Gerry Mc, then the DNA in the car cannot be relevant. Unless by massive coincidence Gerry Mc hired the same car that the new suspect had hired weeks before.
The current state of the dna analysis is “inconclusive”. This is because the tools/ methods available at the time were not able to carry out the type of analysis necessary.
As techniques have moved on since then, it is possible that the latest techniques might be able to complete the analysis. ...indeed they have been doing exactly this revisiting of old data in cases around the world.
The owner of one of the two companies in the world that have this capability has offered to analyse the data with the new techniques, for free. It would take less than two weeks to return an answer. The methods are scientifically valid and have been accepted in top courts across the world.
If I was in the mccanns situation, I’d love for these techniques to clear my name and put the speculation to bed.
After all, my family members, who were registered to drive the vehicle, have given witness statements that the dna will have come from meat blood that spilled out of plastic bags stored in the boot on the way to the tip. It would be great to prove that once and for all, and at no cost!
PBDirector said:
If I was in the mccanns situation, I’d love for these techniques to clear my name and put the speculation to bed.
They are not concerned about ‘clearing their name’ because nobody sensible thinks they ‘did it’. They are not concerned about internet speculation and rightly so. PBDirector said:
dundarach said:
It's almost impossible to comment on this thread for fear of it being taken down....here goes...
in my opinion no way did anything from that flat get taken out and disposed of at a later date, not with that amount of media around.
To your first point, Im assuming that as long as you state what are facts, and what is your opinion, then our hosts should be ok with it. Whether or not you say something that later gets found by a court to be libellous is another matter.in my opinion no way did anything from that flat get taken out and disposed of at a later date, not with that amount of media around.
To your second point, I recommend you listen to the nine.com.au podcast series where they address this timeline. In my opinion, if we are discussing a hypothetical scenario in which one were removing a body under similar circumstances, I would say the time to do it would be before the press arrived, not after.
Unless items where retained, which, given the self control to dispose of an object, one would have thought, this problem would have been thought through, especially given almost 4 weeks to think about it.
This for me, is the largest conspiracy problem, 25 days later, when the world was watching, they hire a car AND someone then get the smell in to it, how?
dundarach said:
This for me, is the largest conspiracy problem, 25 days later, when the world was watching, they hire a car AND someone then get the smell in to it, how?
Just quickly on this point. When the girls in Soham disappeared the worlds press and an army of police descended on the town. Huntley was interviewed by all of these people countless times because he was the last person to see them, he appeared on television stations all across the globe standing in front of his house. While the whole world stared intently at the place he brazened it out with the two dead girls in dustbins in his back garden. And also under this glare he placed the bodies into the boot of his car, drove them into the countryside and spent an hour trying to destroy them with fire.I'm not comparing these two cases or making accusations against the McCanns but people always say there was too much attention on them for all these strange occurrences to mean anything. That isn't necessarily the case.
Ayahuasca said:
They are not concerned about ‘clearing their name’ because nobody sensible thinks they ‘did it’. They are not concerned about internet speculation and rightly so.
I don’t think you’re able to correctly state that “nobody sensible thinks they ‘did it’”There is ZERO evidence of an abduction. ZERO.
There is plenty of things that do not tally with the mccanns view of the events of that evening and the days leading up to it.
Including but very much not limited to no evidence of the window being forced, no forensic evidence on the window except Kate’s own hand print on the inside of the window, and a window itself that no reasonable adult could have gotten thru with a sleeping child.
that is why people are questioning this case.
Ayahuasca said:
They are not concerned about ‘clearing their name’ because nobody sensible thinks they ‘did it’. They are not concerned about internet speculation and rightly so.
Plenty of people think ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ could do with a bit of clarification. Why would they obfuscate?Ayahuasca said:
If the DNA was in a car that Gerry Mc hired weeks after the disappearance, and the new suspect is not Gerry Mc, then the DNA in the car cannot be relevant. Unless by massive coincidence Gerry Mc hired the same car that the new suspect had hired weeks before.
Could it not be that the car used was deliberately hired to the McCanns? PBDirector said:
Welshbeef said:
It really isn’t the standard - instead I’d say it’s the extreme.
I’m really relieved you’ve changed your opinion on this. I remember a heated debate between us two a few years ago where you repeatedly said it was just like having a bbq in the back garden, and I said it really wasn’t! ...what was it that finally changed your mind?Note I’ve and we’ve never left our kids alone at home or anywhere else - and never will.
essayer said:
The argument was that the apartment was just the other side of the swimming pool where the tapas restaurant was and so they were happy to check on them ‘every twenty minutes’. Two red points on the map. All the parents in the group did the same.
I can’t imagine ever doing that now, but then the whole McCann thing is the reason for that. Maybe attitudes were different then? The Netflix documentary is worth a watch.
Using that top down view it’s clear there is no line of sight or at best it’s partial, add in its night time add in lights inside he Tapas joint add in booze and in sI can’t imagine ever doing that now, but then the whole McCann thing is the reason for that. Maybe attitudes were different then? The Netflix documentary is worth a watch.
Edited by essayer on Tuesday 21st May 12:03
ts and giggles for the Tapas 8 it would be very easy for someone who wanted to gain assess to do so without being noticed. Was the apartment block full or not during the break? What did the other guests have to say about them goo/bad /indifferent.
br d said:
dundarach said:
This for me, is the largest conspiracy problem, 25 days later, when the world was watching, they hire a car AND someone then get the smell in to it, how?
Just quickly on this point. When the girls in Soham disappeared the worlds press and an army of police descended on the town. Huntley was interviewed by all of these people countless times because he was the last person to see them, he appeared on television stations all across the globe standing in front of his house. While the whole world stared intently at the place he brazened it out with the two dead girls in dustbins in his back garden. And also under this glare he placed the bodies into the boot of his car, drove them into the countryside and spent an hour trying to destroy them with fire.I'm not comparing these two cases or making accusations against the McCanns but people always say there was too much attention on them for all these strange occurrences to mean anything. That isn't necessarily the case.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446212/Hu...
I think he killed them, put them in his car, disposed of them even before the alarm was raised....
Later he changed the car tyres etc, however he wasn't driving them around once Sky News arrived.
If anything was disposed of, it was well before they rented a car 25 days later..how did they keep anything from going off, in the fridge, really? what about the smell...
Let me be clear, I'm not saying nothing happened...not saying that AT ALL...
I'm saying I don't understand how the dogs alerted to a site not in contact with anything until 4 weeks later....
dundarach said:
I'm saying I don't understand how the dogs alerted to a site not in contact with anything until 4 weeks later....
I thought the implication was that there had been something in the car that had been in contact with a cadaver Eg an item of clothing.
So the dogs could smell that.
desolate said:
I thought the implication was that there had been something in the car that had been in contact with a cadaver
Eg an item of clothing.
So the dogs could smell that.
Yes, the carpet, door card and key fob. And no, it wasn’t secondary transfer. They had the ability to tell even back then.Eg an item of clothing.
So the dogs could smell that.
desolate said:
dundarach said:
I'm saying I don't understand how the dogs alerted to a site not in contact with anything until 4 weeks later....
I thought the implication was that there had been something in the car that had been in contact with a cadaver Eg an item of clothing.
So the dogs could smell that.
In which case, what a f
k up....and masive mistake!Ayahuasca said:
They are not concerned about ‘clearing their name’ because nobody sensible thinks they ‘did it’. They are not concerned about internet speculation and rightly so.
Btw, I agree with your statement. What’s in the mccanns interest to do this analysis? If you’re the mccanns and you know you’re innocent, what’s the point?PBDirector said:
Ayahuasca said:
They are not concerned about ‘clearing their name’ because nobody sensible thinks they ‘did it’. They are not concerned about internet speculation and rightly so.
Btw, I agree with your statement. What’s in the mccanns interest to do this analysis? If you’re the mccanns and you know you’re innocent, what’s the point?Could even work for financial gain as if it proved them innocent they might be able to reopen the case against Amoral by proving he was chatting s
t about them. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff