MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Madeleine Beth McCann went missing from PDL in Portugal on the 3rd May 2007, there are so many unanswered questions, please discuss

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby sentinel » Fri May 30, 2008 4:51 pm

Fenugreek wrote:The May 2nd scenario can only be true if Madeleine did not attend the creche at all, and everyone was aware of that. The objections to this are obvious, but not insurmountable.

The May 3rd early evening offers far too little time, in my judgement.

Perplexing!


who is to say the event wasn't planned before the 3rd?
"We, with Coldwater's help, have let our imaginations run wild"
User avatar
sentinel
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 3594
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:10 am

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby tylersmum » Fri May 30, 2008 4:52 pm

miffed wrote:
sentinel wrote:Of course, the investigators could be holding something back...

And gagging relevant witnesses!

Madeleine not being in the creche the previous day, although highly suspicious, is not reason enough to arrest whomever they suspect.

.

If the McCanns had told the police that Madeleine was at the creche and it could be proven she wasn't it would be enough to arrest .They would be charged with the Portuguese equivalent of perverting the course of justice for a start.
They would also been made arguidos and questioned intensively about her disappearance
tylersmum
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:55 am

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby Ismellarat » Fri May 30, 2008 4:55 pm

The only way the PJ would know for certain that Madeleine had been in the creche
for the time that her parents claim she would have been in the creche would IMO be:

if

a) there would be only one point of access to the creche and that point of access
would have been covered by CCTV all day long

b) A high ranking officer of the PJ or GNR had wanted to branch out into childcare
and had personally supervised the signing in/out process on May 3rd.

As neither a or b are likely...the PJ must rely on witness statements..let's look
at the witness statements we know about:

Baker: keeping stumm
Pennington: high tea ? Yes, no, yes, no, yes

So 'assumptions' that Madeleine was at the creche at the times spelled out by the parents
....are open to questioning IMO

That and the the fact that MW who's world famous child care services are one of the main
'selling points' having an awful lot to lose if those services are proven to not quite be up to scratch.
User avatar
Ismellarat
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: in the embrace of the trade winds

Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK V

Postby helena » Fri May 30, 2008 4:58 pm

Ismellarat wrote:The only way the PJ would know for certain that Madeleine had been in the creche
for the time that her parents claim she would have been in the creche would IMO be:

if

a) there would be only one point of access to the creche and that point of access
would have been covered by CCTV all day long

b) A high ranking officer of the PJ or GNR had wanted to branch out into childcare
and had personally supervised the signing in/out process on May 3rd.

As neither a or b are likely...the PJ must rely on witness statements..let's look
at the witness statements we know about:

Baker: keeping stumm
Pennington: high tea ? Yes, no, yes, no, yes

So 'assumptions' that Madeleine was at the creche at the times spelled out by the parents
....are open to questioning IMO

That and the the fact that MW who's world famous child care services are one of the main
'selling points' having an awful lot to lose if those services are proven to not quite be up to scratch.



absolutely spot on
the register means nothing imo
User avatar
helena
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: swindon

Previous

Return to Justice for Madeleine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests
cron