Not to mention the homespun variety.
Three posts from the Maddie Case Files, chosen for their very salient talking points and re-published with the permission of, and thanks to, the authors.
From Midas
All that anybody really knows for sure, is that a three years old child was reported to be missing from the bed that she allegedly slept in. We know this for a fact because her parents came on the telly and told us so. And since that moment we have been shown that the holiday-makers trust each other implicitly and asked to believe that there is an SAS-trained swarthy, predatory paedophile who has never struck the area before or since, but is holding Madeleine in a safe place where she is not being harmed.
We have been shown wrongly dated video and photographs. We have not been asked to help find this child but told to. Indeed people have even been asked to pay for the privilege of looking for this child who was (allegedly) not being supervised by her parents or anybody else at the time she was allegedly snatched from her bed. Most parents consider themselves lucky to find that their child is high-lighted on a police web-site, but Team McCann wants people to invest in holiday-packs of posters that the public have to pay for. They should re-mortgage their home or get their rich pals to buy these for them, and then hand them out for free.
It is an international disgrace that these seemingly ordinary big gang of people have been allowed to give both the law and the public, the biggest run-around since Al Capone and his chums. To blindly agree with the holiday-makers various versions of what is supposed to have happened from the beginning of their holiday is not only stupefyingly stupid, but leaves Madeleine's memory in limbo forever. We need more truth.
Despite all the factual and logical ways some of us purport to be working on this case, we have to remember that some of it defies logic. We have not been working from logical and simple statements, and we are not working with logical and simple people.
The scheming was acknowledged by the Embassy within hours of getting hold of the story. Why would anybody wish to doubt the Embassy at search an early stage? Why did the Government not take any notice of their own Embassy? Why were the staff moved on so quickly? Why were the PDL nannies shipped out so quickly? Why were witnesses in the case allowed to chat to each other and make visits after the 'disappearance? Why are people like BK and Hogg involved?
This is not just about an ordinary three year old child who didn't come home from an ordinary holiday with ordinary people. If this sounds like I am being conspiratorial. So be it.
~ ~ ~
From Meadow
Whilst we all want to deal in FACTS about this case, and if we whizzzz back to those early days on MF when perhaps it was one of the only 'open' debates, much followed and contributed. We have to acknowledge the difference between FACT & FICTION. But there is this other grey area of hearsay. When the only information came via the 'source' friends and family of the McCanns, those early pieces of information, and I'm talking here about the first 48 hours were consistent. Furthermore they were probably PRE-knowledge & warning of the judicial secrecy, pre-lawyer speak and pre-putting your foot in it.
McKenzie
Here and here.
So, we set the scene everyone is running around like blue-ass bumble bees and Mr McCann is on his mobile, it's about 11 pm. Mr McKenzie overhears the telephone conversation, he is so alarmed by what he hears, it sufficient to report it to the police.
So, here we have confirmation about phone calls back to the UK. My take on this, generally is the content of those phone calls and what was repeated by the recipients is basically true. Words like ''jemmied'' and ''they've taken here'' are probably repeated almost word for word. The word for example ''jemmied'' would not have been replaced with ''signs of a break in'' or vice versa, jemmied is specific. Yet there are no signs of damage, force entry or a crow-bar\implement. So those repeating such information must have been fed it from somewhere, they couldn’t have read it in the press or heard it in the media, they were the ‘source’
So we have the scene of total panic (well it should have been) we have Mrs McCann hitting walls, others producing written timelines, photographs, organising calls to the police, finding people to translate, others organising a ‘’managed\rehearsed’’ missing child procedure. And Mr McCann on his mobile, of course you can search and talk at the same time, but he was at that time back at the apartment (McKenzie).
People who have the benefits of social\professional\family networking capability no doubt would put it into full swing, but why within an hour ? Why, when you would be so filled with optimism that Madeleine may be soon found, nearby - perhaps you don’t believe lost (W&W) but dumped by the would be abductor for whatever reason, but that would your hope. When would you phone home? When would you extend the need if you could to call in favours. Let us remind ourselves that by midnight, this had gone full-circle between two countries. Isn’t there a statement somewhere, either BBC or Sky asking for confirmation that the police had yet to attend ?
McKenzie seemed to have stumbled onto something that night, that he thought sufficiently peculiar to inform the police, not once but twice. I wonder now, three years on what he is thinking when he recalls that night overhearing the father of Madeleine, when she was never found or any closer to knowing what might have happened to her.
Do the Smith family think about what they saw and how it should have impacted on the case?
Do the nursery workers\MW staff who assisted that night in searching for Madeleine, stop to wonder all these years on what happened, why the silence from the participants.
Just compare now, in the UK in the aftermath of this most recent case of Mr Bird’s killing rampage, 12 dead, 25 injured, photographs, timelines, interviews, background. Everyone has a theory. We know about his financial dealings, inner family conflicts and so and so on.
The McCanns and the T7 - NOTHING. We didn’t even know they had faces. In three years time, do you think the 12 dead people will be represented in the media as individuals, no - time will have passed on, like Hunger ford & Dunblane.
So why with such anonymity OF THOSE INVOLVED, can the case of Madeleine McCann be held so high in the public domain based manly on the initial shock of HEARSAY.
‘’They’ve taken her’’ the shutters were jemmied.
~ ~ ~
From Meadow
When we think of the T9Timeline (or alibi) The cluster f*** at 9.05 - 9.15.
Then one nasty grey area, time and time again by-passed and in the best of the 'whodunits,' it was the person\s not there (in the Tapas). Nothing accounts for the timing & reason for O'B to re-check the children within 10 minutes of JT's return and the reason why Oldfield then checks the McCann children within the apartment within 15-20 minutes of McCann's return.
So, two people missing from the Tapas, who are given the perfect alibi that they couldn't possibly have had anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine alleged disappearance, because she had ALREADY GONE, and that includes the person who failed to notice it.
I mean whether these adults failed their children by the apparent neglectful behaviour, which I totally fail to see why they didn't openly and frequently get 'stick' for, apart from being made ambassadors for child welfare! we are still left with the Timeline that will forever haunt them. Their timeline which they wrote.
Just how does someone in a room no larger that 10 ' x 10' miss a child, when 50% of the beds are un-occupied, whether he knew which one she slept in or not.
How do, two adults chatting in a road, miss a person passing them by, within a couple of feet in the quiet of the night, yet this same person can see yards ahead to the end of the road to identify the frill on the bottom of a child's PJ's, whilst being abducted.
It will be the timeline that will come back to haunt this case, if the media chose to understand it's complexity and inconsistency, yet alone the probability that it could have happened this was would be pushing the boat out too far.
But nothing we haven't all said so many times before. Somehow it was easier to discuss the probabilities of this case, without the apparent FACTS gained from the official file.
~ ~ ~
Padding.
Like a lot things, this doesn't seem to be applicable to the McCann Case.
Locard's exchange principle
From Wikipedia.
The Locard exchange principle, also known as Locard's theory, was postulated by 20th century forensic scientist Edmond Locard.
Locard was the director of the very first crime laboratory in existence, located in Lyon, France. Locard's exchange principle states that "with contact between two items, there will be an exchange" (Thornton, 1997).
Essentially Locard's principle is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator(s) of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so the perpetrator(s) will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene. Every contact leaves a trace.
“Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value. ”
—Paul L. Kirk. 1953. Crime investigation: physical evidence and the police laboratory. Interscience Publishers, Inc.: New York.
Fragmentary or trace evidence is any type of material left at—or taken from—a crime scene, or the result of contact between two surfaces, such as shoes and the floor covering or soil, or fibers from where someone sat on an upholstered chair.
When a crime is committed, fragmentary (or trace) evidence needs to be collected from the scene. A team of specialized police technicians go to the scene of the crime and seal it off. They both record video and take photographs of the crime scene, victim (if there is one) and items of evidence. If necessary, they undertake a firearms and ballistics examination. They check for shoe and tire mark impressions, examine any vehicles and check for fingerprints.
An easier way to remember this is that "Every Contact Leaves A Trace." Wiki
h/t almostgothic
.
