all our love

our initials d a and n ;):0

Couldn’t make it up could you….

I think your post is the one of the best I have ever seen on Anorak.

A brilliant summing up of the case to date. Congratulations.

I think there is a possibility that the McCanns assumed the shutters had been forced open because they were open, likewise the window, but had been shut earlier. It may be a case of a simple mistake.

Of course, it may not.

If around, please post the link again to the video of the priest. Brilliant. I agree with on2u. The priest is totally comfortable with his own thoughts, with what his community did, with what his Catholic colleague did (giving key to McCanns) and just contemptuous of the interviewer’s innuendo. He is too polite to tell the interviewer exactly what he thinks of her though! He is very careful in what he says as well. A great chap and seems to me to exemplify Christianity. (Not saying others don’t have same virtues, or better, but this man seems a good example of Christianity at its best. We see so many bad examples!!)

If Stevo isn’t on, I must try to find time to go back through posts and find the link. That interview is worth seeing.

But is it Clarence who is putting out the rubbish about Walczuch?

I have read three reports (Sun, Mirror, Mail) though very quickly as I’m busy today.

It looks to me like another vile gutter press ruse to gather readers. As usual, they show utter contempt for the truth and total unconcern for anyone who gets hurt in their money-making, lying process.

The Sun actually boasts that these supposed church elders spoke to their reporter. The Mirror doesn’t quote a source at all (what a surprise) but implies that they have spoken to these people. The Mail is similar although later it has one line saying that the private detectives are investigating possible sightings of Walczuch etc. We already knew that.

I’m not aware of Clarence having said anything at all? Do you have a link to indicate otherwise? I’d like to read it if so. It’s not on the Sky or BBC sites.

I’m not discounting any possibilities in this story, from Tony Bennett’s scenario to any other, but, as usual, I like to be cautious in my judgements until we know facts. I have seen the papers publish so many lies in this, and other, cases, that I definitely reserve judgement on anything and everything!

Tony Bennett may be right but I think GM would have had no option but to say “No comment” when asked about Murat. Murat was an arguido at that time; GM wasn’t. GM was a witness and still under caution to say nothing which went to the heart of the investigation. He may have seen Murat around anyway and known him in that sense, without having known him earlier or having any actual connection with him. I don’t think we know yet. Murat has already gone through hell, if he is innocent.

Of course, all three remain arguidos so the police may well know more about all this than we do.

(If they are all guilty together, why did the three friends say they saw Murat around on the night? Surely they would have all been keen to protect one another if it was a group crime thing?)

There are oddities about this case. Why did Murat change his alibi for the night (if indeed he did), saying first that he was with the girlfriend and then that he was with his mother? Was that one of the things which made the police suspicious? I don’t know if it is true that this change of alibi actually took place or was just reported in the rags. Anyone know?

Other oddity: the five minute window of opportunity. They need to requestion everyone.

Thought the anglican priest appeared perfectly comfortable with what he believed. It was the inuendo’s that bothered him. He scratched the back of his neck out of frustration with the reporter. Absolutely no touching of ear as in gerry McCann.

‘The shutters being open/jemmied – whoever did it, and if you rule out the window as either an entry or exit point, this was obviously ‘scene staging’. What this doesn’t tell you however is who did the staging?’

———————————————-

As far as I am aware there was never any evidence that the shutters had been jemmied open.

Which means that looking for a person who jemmied the shutters open is, by definition, an entirely pointless exercise…

You can, of course, pursue questions based on why the McCanns said this at the outset to other family members.
++++++++++++++

Don’t suppose anyone is still following yesterday’s forum, but just in case..

We type at crossed purposes. I didn’t say/suggest that the shutters had been “jemmied”. However, the shutters were allegedly “open”. The question then is “who” opened them and “why”?

• Was it an abductor(s) – To pass something(s) in/out, shed some light inside the apartment, etc
• Was it one or both of the McCann’s themselves in an attempt to “stage” an abduction scene
• Was it someone else who wanted to “stage” the abduction scene – i.e. Someone one the McCann’s know but whom they don’t suspect, at least initially

Following from the above, is then feasible that:

• The McCann’s mistook the open shutters as the external point of entry and assumed, incorrectly, that they must have been jemmied – i.e. The alleged abductor(s) did it or someone the McCann’s know but whom they don’t suspect
• The McCann’s knew the shutters weren’t jemmied, because they both knew of the scene “staging” and therefore they are lying
• One of the McCann’s knew/or didn’t know that the shutters were/were not jemmied because they were/were not involved in the scene staging. Therefore, depending upon who made the statement about them having been jemmied they could either be mistaken or lying
• The McCann’s were led to believe the shutters were jemmied by someone they know, but don’t suspect, and who had themselves ‘staged’ the scene

1. The McCanns screamed abuduction - how silly of me, I thought it would be a natural conclusion for a parent to jump to if they were not directly responsible for their child’s disappearance.
2. Destroyed evidence in the apartment - here I thought the police left their ashes around the apartment which tainted any evidence that might be found. I presumed the cleaning staff entered the ’secured’ apartment, now it was secured by the police, wasn’t it, immediately,(?) and changed the bedding, swept the floors. Now I find out the suspects must have changed the bedding, swept the floors, tainted the evidence with ashes, before vacating the apartment.
3. I thought Ms. Tanner said she saw a man carrying a child under a blanket but realized in days to come she may well have witnessed the abduction of the child. Guess I’ve overlooked where the police have announced she told a bare-faced lie.
4. The police have been forced to spend millions investigating false sightings; following up on false leads; searching dumps; digging up the churchyard; searching lakes and the seas; interviewing other persons; comparing stories, etc. Now isn’t that just ridiculous for police to spend their time and monies doing all that. Here I’ve always been under the erroneous impression that is what good police investigations entail - leaving no stone unturned.
5. The various scenarios have been changed - was she taken out by the window; out through the door; where she could have been carried to in close proximity. I thought the second task force brought in - the ones with the brains and open minds - started from scratch and ran through carefully every avenue and way she could have been carried out and where to.
6. Tests done on the blood in the apartment and supposed bodily fluid in the trunk of the car, here I thought they were inconclusive and could not be matched directly to the child. I’ve always been under the impression that DNA either is or is not a match. Maybe’s don’t count! Remember the theory of the footprint on the truck of the car was one of them putting the child’s body in? I read the police have acknowledged it was the footprint left from a policeman. Think they are covering up for the real culprit?
7. The McCanns refused to answer questions posed by the police. Silly of them, wasn’t it! Here they went and hired a lawyer - and being a lawyer you know how lawyers think - tell their client to keep their mouths shut and not talk without the lawyer present and maybe not even talk them until the lawyer gets a feel for the questions and where the investigation is going. You hire a lawyer you listen to them, that is why you hire one to protect your rights innocent or guilty. Why shouldn’t they have hired the best money can find? In a foreign country, foreign laws, and they and everyone else already realized how biased and incompetent the police could be after dealing with the first ones handling the case and they were removed, weren’t they, after embarrassing the Portugese Government! In fact, they are the ones who tainted the evidence; sloppy police work; deliberately leaked erroneously information to the papers; didn’t secure the apartment immediately; didn’t search the local dumpsters immediately in case the child’s body was there; made up their minds the McCanns were guilty and didn’t budge from that frame of mind; questioned the McCanns and others and didn’t record the questioning sessions leaving wide open for their own interpretation with language problems in translations.
8. The policeman put in charge of the investigation now comes across as very professional and very thorough. If he doesn’t solve the case - then we the public will never know the truth. However, we can be sure of one thing: either one person will know the truth or nine people will know the truth about what happened to that young child.

The house where the McCanns stayed in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve, belongs to a woman also called McCann and not to the Ocean Club.
Confronted with the possibility of being a relative of Maddie’s parents, Clarence Mitchell denied saying that is “a strange and remarkable coincidence”.
The apartment A, number 5, locate at Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, Montes da Luz Urbanization, Praia da luz, is registered with the number 3666. In 2001 the house was bought by a kind of society belonging to Daniel John Aldred, Michael William McCann and the daughter of the latest (daughter of his 1st marriage) Donna Michelle Aldred and the wife, Ruth Margaret McCann. Michael McCann born in Devonport, Plymouth was a widow when he married Margaret Ruth Pittaway, now with 53 years old also a widow in 1987.
In 2005 Michael and Ruth bought the part of the Aldred couple keeping each of them 50% of the apartment.
Later in July 2006 Michael McCann died in Liverpool and in November of the same year Ruth McCann inherited his part becoming the only proprietor.

“No break in

24 Horas learnt through judicial sources that Ruth was never heard by the Portuguese authorities. Clarence Mitchell said that this was the first time that the couple was in Portugal. The authorities did not detected any evidence of break in when they searched the house to collect vestiges. A judicial source connected to the investigation said that would be very difficult that someone would break in the house without leaving traces. The stories of the McCanns and their friends that dinned at the Tapas Bar differ : Some say that the door was closed and Maddie’s bedroom window was open. Others say that both the door and the window were closed, said an investigator. The flat is sealed by judicial order since May 4.”

” don’t think anyone will ever be able to say that the McCanns did not do everything humanly possible to have their child found.”
——————
Maria, why did they run? why not take lie detector? what not answer all questions put to them? You speak nonsense.

I just saw an UK Express headline stating the news Canada brought in…