Aw, you behave! Of course its imaginary if there's no evidence for it!
Well, then, so was it a sedation accident? Unlikely at 5pm. Was it an accident whilst someone was on the tennis court? Unlikely at 9pm.
See, you can't keep adding up all these imaginary suspicious things into one big imaginary suspicious thing when some of them rule out each other. Probably once you factor out all the contradictory imaginary things, there'd be nothing left.
Maybe best if you concentrated on the fridge? I mean, find that and we might just have some concrete evidence!
stop putting words into my mouth something you always complain about dear CATH O1
something COULD have happened all that night - there is NOTHING to disprove it dont you see? but the dogs smelled something was wrong whether you like it or not
Strangely Cath01 ,I thought it was you who brought the fridge into the discussion.
A hundred pages ago.
Nooo. Amaral. All his idea. Well, more than an idea, a fact, according to him. And since people keep telling me that he knows more about it than me, and the entire investigation agreed with him, then it seems reasonable to give it some attention. I wonder where it is? Who it belongs to? Why they lent it to some passing tourists to put a body in? Intriguing, you must agree. I mean, is Amaral right, or is he talking complete and utter nonsense. You decide.
I thought I'd share this. For the first time ever Mr Python and I have talked about this case and he's given me his hypothesis.
GM does his check, and then leaves. A burglar has been keeping tabs on the apartments and notes when GM leaves and knows the patio door is open. When GM finishes talking to Jes Wilkins nd walks back to the tapas the burglar makes his move and goes in via the patio doors. Madeleine has got up as she has heard her dad talking and is in the living room on the sofa trying to look for him. The burglar is taken by surprise and Madeleine starts crying. Burglar grabs her and accidentally smothers her whilst trying to quieten her. He panics. puts he body behind the sofa and leaves quickly. He may have an accomplice, but he comes back after Oldfields check to get Madeleine's body (and check she is dead) because is worried about DNA from him linking him to the crime. He opens the window and blind in the kids bedroom to check the coast is clear before leaving with Madeleine's body via the front door and gets into his (or accomplice) car. At this point he'll take the risk of the twins waking because he needs to know the coast is clear and will be leaving soon.
Cadaver odour gets on KMs clothes and cuddlecat because the burglar inadvertently touches them (panicking about taking toy to look like she wandered).
There has been a spate of burglaries and disturbancies, and Mr Python thinks the police should focus on this aspect.
Mr Python thinks he has solved it LOL! I'm not too sure, there is a lot of risk in being seen coming back to get the body plus I think the cross contamination of cadaver odour from burglar to cuddle cat and KMs clothes is weak. But hey I thought I'd put it out there!
He thinks Tanner's sighting is a red herring and probably just a parent taking their child home - same with the Smiths sighting.
He did start off with Madeleine and twins being sedated and the accident falling from the sofa theory but then questioned as to why parents would do checks on kids that they had sedated and knew wouldn't wake up.
Just one slight flaw.*
Kate "was there" and "knows what happened"....but she never mentioned any of this.
I've never seen a blackhole therefore they do not exist :rolleyes:
Don't be silly. Evidence isn't defined as something you can see. Otherwise you got more to worry about that black holes. Gravity, for example. You ever seen that?
You put an idea foward, I debated it. Thats forum life.
something COULD have happened all that night - there is NOTHING to disprove it dont you see?
It doesn't work like that. If you have a thesis you need to be able to evidence it. Otherwise, people could go around claiming all sorts, and expect it to be taken seriously.
It doesn't work like that. If you have a thesis you need to be able to evidence it. Otherwise, people could go around claiming all sorts, and expect it to be taken seriously.
Yes indeed, like John McCann every year in the chairman's statement in the Madeleine Fund accounts: "On 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal."
Nooo. Amaral. All his idea. Well, more than an idea, a fact, according to him. And since people keep telling me that he knows more about it than me, and the entire investigation agreed with him, then it seems reasonable to give it some attention. I wonder where it is? Who it belongs to? Why they lent it to some passing tourists to put a body in? Intriguing, you must agree. I mean, is Amaral right, or is he talking complete and utter nonsense. You decide.
Well I kinds like Sr Amaral.
And only one or two people talk nonsense but that is for each person to decide.
We all have our own views, as you have your's Cath01.:)
And I got 2 fridges and 2 freezers , so I will go and check them out.
Look, frisky has posted a coherent, credible theory that is consistent with the known facts. Its a credible account of a possible crime.
Can you muster the same for a theory involving the parent? I mean, it would be a start.
Ok you can ignore the fridge if you want. I won't tell Amaral. Mainly cos I think its nonsense, and I expect most people round here do too. Even though he did say that a glob of defrosting, decomposing body fluid dropped of it right in front of his very eyes.
you dont know anything unless you were there - you sound like clarence mitchell - they are totally innocent and any evidence found or not found will exonerate them
YOU WERE NOT THERE SO YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER CATH - thats all
Because if it was a burglar and he accidentally killed Madeleine, I honestly can't see him wondering off with her. It would be such a huge risk, if he was going to nick a mobile phone, camera, maybe some money and he was caught, fair enough.
But for the burglar to accidentally kill a child, then decide to leave her behind a settee, THEN go back afterwards to pick up her body is just a step too far.
I think the 'abduction' theory where it was more of a planned attack, after the 'abductor' had been casing the joing would be more relevant.
But I think if this were the case then the timeline is right out the window (pardon the pun).
And I still find it difficult to discount the dogs 'findings' (not evidence Cat).
No-one knows what happened and that's why we're all still here.
Well I kinds like Sr Amaral.
And only one or two people talk nonsense but that is for each person to decide.
We all have our own views, as you have your's Cath01.:)
Yeah, but they won't all be right.
And after all, if you're going to accuse two people of disposing of the body of their child, the least you could do is to make some effort to give a credible account of that. Not you personally, Amaral. But you too, if you're so minded.
you dont know anything unless you were there - you sound like clarence mitchell - they are totally innocent and any evidence found or not found will exonerate them
YOU WERE NOT THERE SO YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER CATH - thats all
YOU JUST DONT AT ALL IN ANY WAY WHATSOVER
I think your caps lock got stuck
I've never said I know the truth.
Its Amaral who says he does. And that includes the fridge.
But then, without evidence, imaginary theories are imaginary. Fridges too.
Comments
stop putting words into my mouth something you always complain about dear CATH O1
something COULD have happened all that night - there is NOTHING to disprove it dont you see? but the dogs smelled something was wrong whether you like it or not
Nooo. Amaral. All his idea. Well, more than an idea, a fact, according to him. And since people keep telling me that he knows more about it than me, and the entire investigation agreed with him, then it seems reasonable to give it some attention. I wonder where it is? Who it belongs to? Why they lent it to some passing tourists to put a body in? Intriguing, you must agree. I mean, is Amaral right, or is he talking complete and utter nonsense. You decide.
Just one slight flaw.*
Kate "was there" and "knows what happened"....but she never mentioned any of this.
*(Actually, a lot of other flaws.)
Don't be silly. Evidence isn't defined as something you can see. Otherwise you got more to worry about that black holes. Gravity, for example. You ever seen that?
They certainly have their opinions in the states don't they?
You put an idea foward, I debated it. Thats forum life.
It doesn't work like that. If you have a thesis you need to be able to evidence it. Otherwise, people could go around claiming all sorts, and expect it to be taken seriously.
Yes, indeed.
You got something on the fridge?
Yes indeed, like John McCann every year in the chairman's statement in the Madeleine Fund accounts: "On 3rd May 2007, Madeleine McCann was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal."
Thanks again, Lizzy. Another good read. I would now like to read one in support of the parents.
it was NOT HIS IDEA, get that in your brain
it was all the investigating officers that made a report ffs are you so prejudiced?
Well I kinds like Sr Amaral.
And only one or two people talk nonsense but that is for each person to decide.
We all have our own views, as you have your's Cath01.:)
And I got 2 fridges and 2 freezers , so I will go and check them out.
Look, frisky has posted a coherent, credible theory that is consistent with the known facts. Its a credible account of a possible crime.
Can you muster the same for a theory involving the parent? I mean, it would be a start.
Ok you can ignore the fridge if you want. I won't tell Amaral. Mainly cos I think its nonsense, and I expect most people round here do too. Even though he did say that a glob of defrosting, decomposing body fluid dropped of it right in front of his very eyes.
No need to get so aerated. Can you please direct me to anything in the files about this fridge that, according to you, they all agreed existed?
you dont know anything unless you were there - you sound like clarence mitchell - they are totally innocent and any evidence found or not found will exonerate them
YOU WERE NOT THERE SO YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT IS THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER CATH - thats all
YOU JUST DONT AT ALL IN ANY WAY WHATSOVER
Did any or all of them come out of the ark?
Because if it was a burglar and he accidentally killed Madeleine, I honestly can't see him wondering off with her. It would be such a huge risk, if he was going to nick a mobile phone, camera, maybe some money and he was caught, fair enough.
But for the burglar to accidentally kill a child, then decide to leave her behind a settee, THEN go back afterwards to pick up her body is just a step too far.
I think the 'abduction' theory where it was more of a planned attack, after the 'abductor' had been casing the joing would be more relevant.
But I think if this were the case then the timeline is right out the window (pardon the pun).
And I still find it difficult to discount the dogs 'findings' (not evidence Cat).
No-one knows what happened and that's why we're all still here.
Yeah, but they won't all be right.
And after all, if you're going to accuse two people of disposing of the body of their child, the least you could do is to make some effort to give a credible account of that. Not you personally, Amaral. But you too, if you're so minded.
erm i dont think i said any fridge existed, so AGAIN stop putting words into my mouth
i do hope you will be more honest in your posts cath when we discuss again
I think your caps lock got stuck
I've never said I know the truth.
Its Amaral who says he does. And that includes the fridge.
But then, without evidence, imaginary theories are imaginary. Fridges too.