Was Madeleine first reported missing on 30th April 2007?

[ShiningInLuz]

How can an "obvious computer glitch" cause so much online discussion and debate in the "sceptic" community?  Is there a subconscious (or even conscious) desire to make this case into one of government conspiracy and cover up?  If so, why?  Is it more entertaining that way?

It developed into a massive flame wars battle between some techies saying it was valid and some explaining it was not.

A real problem was that the techies were getting really technical in their discussion, completely leaving behind the non-techies.

Add to that a non-technical person or two of standing stating that nothing could be accepted until the WM came clean and things got even more acrimonious.

A poll I saw said half the non-techies felt completely lost in the technical argument.  I could see an obvious myth in the making, hence my decision to tackle it in a non-technical manner.

I predict it will be in the myths section on here within a year.

[ShiningInLuz]

You have put a lot of work into making what happened on the WM site intelligible ... and it still takes careful reading to take it in. https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/madeleine-v-ceop-on-the-wayback-machine/

I fear it may all be in vain though ... the old myths were getting a bit see through and threadbare ... and here we have the gift of a shiny new one.  Who could resist ... LOL?

It is long, simply because in that case I could not skip on anything.

When this hits myth status, I'm sure a much shorter and simpler version will be required.

[pathfinder73]

Of course there are cases of people dying or being murdered and stuffed into freezers.

But what is the evidence that such a thing happened in this case?

The only explanation for Amaral's "we, policemen, experts..." theory that I can find is that he'd decided that Joana Cipriano had been stuffed in a freezer for some reason. A tiny trace of human blood had been found (which could have been years old), but a DNA profile couldn't be established. It could have been anyone's nicked finger touching a compartment drawer. That didn't matter, it had to be her blood as that was what had been decided.

New case. Hey presto... if there was a partial match to Madeleine's profile in the Scenic... then she, too, must have been frozen.

Amaral was going to investigate sightings at properties. If there was no evidence found outside of Madeleine then where do you think the police will next investigate? If they found evidence of a property and a cadaver dog alerts then things will be very interesting.

One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.

[Brietta]

You are right of course about people believing stuff they read online especially if they are stupid when it should be taken with a pinch of salt. People believe stuff that is written in the papers too way before the internet arrived, but it's made things worse. Before I came to this forum, because this case intrigued me there was much that I was unsure of and perhaps put too much importance in for instance Kate refusing to answer 48 questions. For me it's not that I don't still find this somewhat pertinent from a certain perspective, but it's important to hear all viewpoints to try and reach a more balanced conclusion and not blindly follow instinctive reactions/emotions. I don't believe you would find one active poster that i'm aware of on this forum who puts much stock in this theory. Although, it would be interesting if someone really did believe or find this pertinent. An open mind to me means sometimes IF someone has proof even the most ridiculous theory should be listened too - for instance Sadie's theories sound outlandish on the supporters side. If she offered proof or could talk about it I'd be far more interested in hearing her out.

I think you are the only one who can decide what is considered to be open minded and what is not.  With respect I find that often your posts lean more to one side than the other which I sometimes find extraordinary given your assertion of being convinced neither by one side of the argument or the other.

It isn't so much a case of being open minded as checking out the foundation and accumulation of information which is just plain wrong and easily refuted ... but which is cemented into the overall picture to become a firmly held belief ... I believe this will certainly occur with the latest Way-back Machine 'revelation'.

For example, so much has been made of 'the McCanns and the priest' and designed to be as pejorative as possible, it has entered into mythology almost all of which is mistaken or false and in my opinion if the case is built on untruths there is no case at all.



The couple knew, even before they had gone to Praia da Luz, that the Anglican priest Haynes Hubbard celebrated masses there and lived with his wife. He had a friendship with McCann's family members. It was with him whom they spoke with.
McCanns visited the church in secret http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-secret-visits-of-mccanns-to-church.html


' Has known the McCann family since three days after the disappearance (Sunday). That she went to Portugal on this date (06 May 2007), not to accompany the family but due to work related to the church, which was previously organized.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SUSAN_HUBARD.htm

' That it is the truth that she only knows them through the church and never met them before.

[Carana]

Amaral was going to investigate sightings at properties. If there was no evidence found outside of Madeleine then where do you think the police will next investigate? If they found evidence of a property and a cadaver dog alerts then things will be very interesting.

One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.

What evidence had he found that needed to be checked out?

[pathfinder73]

What evidence had he found that needed to be checked out?

Where and how could they have hidden the body for over twenty days?

GA: That was what we were trying to find out. Searching within their friends, because the couple had a lot of acquaintances. We tried to understand where the little girl could have been during those twenty something days.

Out of reach from the searches.

GA: Yes. There was information that the couple had been seen walking towards a certain apartment block, we were trying to understand which apartment it was. Who had access to that apartment. But everything stopped.

[Eleanor]

Does this Thread say, "Was Madeleine first reported missing on the 30th of April 2007?"

[Alfred R Jones]

How? Boredom!

Perhaps then we can say that boredom is behind a lot of the online "only asking questions" brigade, not the noble cause of "Justice 4 Maddie" as so many purport to be questing for? 

[lordpookles]

I think you are the only one who can decide what is considered to be open minded and what is not.  With respect I find that often your posts lean more to one side than the other which I sometimes find extraordinary given your assertion of being convinced neither by one side of the argument or the other.

It isn't so much a case of being open minded as checking out the foundation and accumulation of information which is just plain wrong and easily refuted ... but which is cemented into the overall picture to become a firmly held belief ... I believe this will certainly occur with the latest Way-back Machine 'revelation'.

For example, so much has been made of 'the McCanns and the priest' and designed to be as pejorative as possible, it has entered into mythology almost all of which is mistaken or false and in my opinion if the case is built on untruths there is no case at all.



The couple knew, even before they had gone to Praia da Luz, that the Anglican priest Haynes Hubbard celebrated masses there and lived with his wife. He had a friendship with McCann's family members. It was with him whom they spoke with.
McCanns visited the church in secret http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-secret-visits-of-mccanns-to-church.html


' Has known the McCann family since three days after the disappearance (Sunday). That she went to Portugal on this date (06 May 2007), not to accompany the family but due to work related to the church, which was previously organized.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SUSAN_HUBARD.htm

' That it is the truth that she only knows them through the church and never met them before.

Yep my opinion fluctuates on this case and my views aren’t as polarised as some. If I was to lay a bet I know what I would bet on though. I think it’s impossible to be 100% sure in this case following logic alone - of course intuition plays its part as does life experience I suppose and other factors. That measure of doubt, which even I assume more obvious members of the believer side have to varying degrees is what we are talking about. I think I’ve said stuff before for instance regarding the McCanns going jogging or the way they come across in interviews is likely normal behaviour and not suspicious of a family that have had their child abducted, but I do have a lot of doubt based off the information I know about - of course I do not know as much as you or many other members on here as for one I haven’t read the police files in their entirety.

I’d probably rather discuss all this in a forum that wasn’t on display on the internet as it seems like people who have doubt are lambasted for criticising the parents of an abduction and causing them hassle - do you believe this? Fair enough I understand that, but it does stifle debate/discussion. Do you think those with genuine doubts or questions should not post? I don’t address this just to you, but it is the vibe i get in general.

Regarding the priest. Of course this case has been one of the biggest hot pots for conspiracy on the internet! The conspiracies coming from the sceptic side certainly seem the most radical or more numerous I guess, but it's interesting how one side imitates the other...

[Alfred R Jones]

Yep my opinion fluctuates on this case and my views aren’t as polarised as some. If I was to lay a bet I know what I would bet on though. I think it’s impossible to be 100% sure in this case following logic alone - of course intuition plays its part as does life experience I suppose and other factors. That measure of doubt, which even I assume more obvious members of the believer side have to varying degrees is what we are talking about. I think I’ve said stuff before for instance regarding the McCanns going jogging or the way they come across in interviews is likely normal behaviour and not suspicious of a family that have had their child abducted, but I do have a lot of doubt based off the information I know about - of course I do not know as much as you or many other members on here as for one I haven’t read the police files in their entirety.

I’d probably rather discuss all this in a forum that wasn’t on display on the internet as it seems like people who have doubt are lambasted for criticising the parents of an abduction and causing them hassle - do you believe this? Fair enough I understand that, but it does stifle debate/discussion. Do you think those with genuine doubts or questions should not post? I don’t address this just to you, but it is the vibe i get in general.

Regarding the priest. Of course this case has been one of the biggest hot pots for conspiracy on the internet! The conspiracies coming from the sceptic side certainly seem the most radical or more numerous I guess, but it's interesting how one side imitates the other...

Re; the above in bold.  This is how I see it.  People are perfectly entitled to doubt the McCanns and criticise them until the cows come home, just as people are entitled to choose to give them the benefit of the doubt and not point the finger.  The question is - who is likely to cause the most damage (to the McCanns themselves, Madeleine and the extended McCann family, and the McCanns holiday friends) - if the McCanns are guilty, then what damage have those who prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt caused?  Indeed what damage has been caused by those who actively support the McCanns, if they turn out to have been guilty all along?  On the other hand if the McCanns are innocent, what damage has been caused by those who actively point the finger at them (and their holiday friends) on a daily basis and who actively seek to spread the word (ie: myths and lies) on the internet about them?  Are one set of people likely to have caused the same amount of damage as the other set of people? 

[Eleanor]

I shall be deleting any further Off Topic Posts.

[slartibartfast]

Everyone on here seems to say no, so I am not sure what there is to discuss?

[Alfred R Jones]

Everyone on here seems to say no, so I am not sure what there is to discuss?

Have we heard from everyone?? 

[Alice Purjorick]

Everyone on here seems to say no, so I am not sure what there is to discuss?

And The Boogah Man has a mention in the third post 

[mercury]

Whoever believes this needs a head transplant. Sorry for the bluntness.