So what actual searching was there?

[stephen25000]

How does one make up one's own mind in a vacuum?  One can only consider by using information received.  Unfortunately in the initial stages and until the release of the files ... much of that information being fed into the public domain was just plain wrong.

There is no way it could have failed to impinge on attitudes towards the search for Madeleine in the early days of her disappearance when a search for was undoubtedly the most productive time for everyone to be on the alert for any clue or suspicion.

Kate and Gerry McCann: What did you do last summer?

Apart from wash the curtains... wash Cuddlecat... move the sofa... put dirty nappies and rotting meat in the boot of the hire car... wash the car and leave the boot lid open... etc ... etc ... etc

The same can be said for abduction, which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans, without a jot of evidence to prove that one happened.

You omit, as per normal, anything which goes against doctrine, and merely type the mccanns mantra of abduction.

[faithlilly]

Your first point conveniently ignores the fact that Redwood would have had complete contol and veto over any questions put to him during the pre-recorded interview.
Your second point does not answer my question regarding which law it is that supposedly makes it illegal for police to name suspects?

Firstly have you any evidence the interview was pre-recorded and secondly I have already provided the information you requested re: police guidelines on naming suspects.

[Brietta]

The same can be said for abduction, which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans, without a jot of evidence to prove that one happened.

You omit, as per normal, anything which goes against doctrine, and merely type the mccanns mantra of abduction.

Absolutely.
Exactly the same influences apply for Madeleine's abduction "which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans"

Where on earth did the information come from to enable people to make that assessment?  The usual place ... leaks from the PJ to the Portuguese press where the lurid headlines formed opinions at the time and for some reason I can't work out ... continue to influence some even today.

JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA
Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'

Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends.

Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias:
 

"Headline: a badly told story."

We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped.

To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

[Benice]

The same can be said for abduction, which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans, without a jot of evidence to prove that one happened.

You omit, as per normal, anything which goes against doctrine, and merely type the mccanns mantra of abduction.

Your constant repetitive claim that McCanns supporters cannot form their own opinions but are merely blindly following a 'doctrine' is clearly preposterous to anyone reading this forum.        Unlike yourself those 'supporters' do actually discuss the case in detail - and also provide evidence to back up their opinions/claims .     On the other hand it would appear that you would rather stick pins in your eyes than do the same.   Why is that Stephen -  if you are so sure that your opinions are right? 

Why are you not trying to persuade people to believe your theory is the correct one - by providing your reasons for why you hold that opinion.       Just slagging off people who disagree with you day after day does nothing to further your cause and has nothing to do with debate imo.

[stephen25000]

Absolutely.
Exactly the same influences apply for Madeleine's abduction "which for many people remains a story made up by the mccans"

Where on earth did the information come from to enable people to make that assessment?  The usual place ... leaks from the PJ to the Portuguese press where the lurid headlines formed opinions at the time and for some reason I can't work out ... continue to influence some even today.

JOSE MANUEL OLIVEIRA
Crime reporter, 'Diario de Noticias'

Information started circulating from sources connected to the Portuguese police that the story was full of holes from the side of the McCanns and their friends.

Indeed within two days of Madeleine disappearing, this crime correspondent was filing this piece in the Portuguese Daily: Diario of the Noticias:
 

"Headline: a badly told story."

We started to receive information according to which the police suspected the theory they had apprehensions, didn't believe the theory that she had been kidnapped.

To conclude, the police started to suspect the parents from the word go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

Incorrect.

It was the UK police who told the PJ to investigate the mccanns.

Likewise, in any missing children cases, investigating the parents is a matter of course.

[stephen25000]

Your constant repetitive claim that McCanns supporters cannot form their own opinions but are merely blindly following a 'doctrine' is clearly preposterous to anyone reading this forum.        Unlike yourself those 'supporters' do actually discuss the case in detail - and also provide evidence to back up their opinions/claims .     On the other hand it would appear that you would rather stick pins in your eyes than do the same.   Why is that Stephen -  if you are so sure that your opinions are right? 

Why are you not trying to persuade people to believe your theory is the correct one - by providing your reasons for why you hold that opinion.       Just slagging off people who disagree with you day after day does nothing to further your cause and has nothing to do with debate imo.

It is known where the supporters discuss the details.


It is also known, courtesy of the Leverson inquiry, that the mccanns have people 'monitoring' the internet.


As to 'slagging off people', I have rarely initiated it on here, but if someone is prepared to make personal attacks, then I will Admin deal with them.

[slartibartfast]

Ok, so no one has any good reason why the body in the coffin scenario is silly.

[slartibartfast]

In all the forums I have used the rules are that when replying to a post - you quote the whole post- and then if you only want to reply to a part of it - you highlight (bold) that part.   

Clear and simple and doesn't offend anyone - whereas striking out can be construed as rude, and only quoting part of a post and leaving out parts of it  -  can result in a different impression being given from the one intended in the post as a whole.   

As it's just as quick - in fact probably quicker to 'highlight and bold' the part you want to reply to rather than 'highlight and delete' parts of a post or 'strike out 'parts of a post that you don't want to reply to - I don't see why there should be a problem.   It works fine everywhere else and doesn't offend anyone.

Could we have some clear instruction on this please?

It is long established netiquette that it is ok to just quote parts of a post as long as that part stands on its own and doesn't depend on the rest of the post for meaning.

P.S. It is frequently done by other members of the forum from both sides.

[Brietta]

Incorrect.

It was the UK police who told the PJ to investigate the mccanns.

Likewise, in any missing children cases, investigating the parents is a matter of course.

We have discussed this many, many times on the forum and you are perpetuating a myth while demonstrating that it was necessary for the UK police to take the extraordinary initiative of instructing the investigation on basic investigative procedures.

However it will be remembered by you that the Portuguese authorities declared unequivocally that there was no evidence to justify the Drs McCann being constituted arguidos and no evidence they had any hand in Madeleine's disappearance.

Far from the Portuguese press at the time terming them 'persons of interest' which is apparently the closest description we have for arguida/o ... they were quite categorically labelled as suspects.

Many of the opinions held today have been formed by the reporting at the time.  The lurid headlines could not have failed to influence public opinion at the time to the detriment to the search for Madeleine.

Particularly as their power is demonstrated by those who still subscribe to the perceived wisdom of the time ... despite all being subsequently overturned.

[Benice]

It is long established netiquette that it is ok to just quote parts of a post as long as that part stands on its own and doesn't depend on the rest of the post for meaning.

P.S. It is frequently done by other members of the forum from both sides.

But one person's opinion that a part of a post 'stands on its own' may not be the opinion of the original poster.  I wasn't happy when you extracted just one para of one of my posts recently and deleted the rest.

Why do it - when it's so easy to quote the whole post - thus ensuring there is no chance of upsetting anyone - even if it is unintentional.


(must go out now)

[Alfred R Jones]

Firstly have you any evidence the interview was pre-recorded and secondly I have already provided the information you requested re: police guidelines on naming suspects.

firstly, are you suggesting that the interview with Andy Redwood in which he makes it clear that the McCanns are neither suspects, nor persons of interest was recorded live as it happened, in which case perhaps you can name the programme and the interviewer during this live TV transmission, and secondly guidelines are not necessarily enshrined in law, unless you can perhaps quote the law to which you are referring?

[Brietta]

It is long established netiquette that it is ok to just quote parts of a post as long as that part stands on its own and doesn't depend on the rest of the post for meaning.

P.S. It is frequently done by other members of the forum from both sides.

Without wishing to resurrect the unpleasantness of yesterday I am in agreement with Benice that an acceptable protocol should be established.
I found what was being done with my posts offensive. There should have been no argument about that when I pointed it out, however thin skinned posters thought I was being.  Highlighting would have prevented all of that.

[stephen25000]

We have discussed this many, many times on the forum and you are perpetuating a myth while demonstrating that it was necessary for the UK police to take the extraordinary initiative of instructing the investigation on basic investigative procedures.

However it will be remembered by you that the Portuguese authorities declared unequivocally that there was no evidence to justify the Drs McCann being constituted arguidos and no evidence they had any hand in Madeleine's disappearance.

Far from the Portuguese press at the time terming them 'persons of interest' which is apparently the closest description we have for arguida/o ... they were quite categorically labelled as suspects.

Many of the opinions held today have been formed by the reporting at the time.  The lurid headlines could not have failed to influence public opinion at the time to the detriment to the search for Madeleine.

Particularly as their power is demonstrated by those who still subscribe to the perceived wisdom of the time ... despite all being subsequently overturned.

Do you really believe all this copying and pasting from other sources that suits your agenda, will persuade me or others to believe you.

You have also omitted to mention the propaganda and articles favouring the mccanns in the UK press. Why is that ?

As to evidence, THERE IS NONE sufficient to brings charges in this case.

[Alfred R Jones]

Without wishing to resurrect the unpleasantness of yesterday I am in agreement with Benice that an acceptable protocol should be established.
I found what was being done with my posts offensive. There should have been no argument about that when I pointed it out, however thin skinned posters thought I was being.  Highlighting would have prevented all of that.

Perhaps we should all adopt the striking through of others' posts when answering, if someone would be so kind as to tell me how to do it, I will gladly adopt this method from now on.

[faithlilly]

firstly, are you suggesting that the interview with Andy Redwood in which he makes it clear that the McCanns are neither suspects, nor persons of interest was recorded live as it happened, in which case perhaps you can name the programme and the interviewer during this live TV transmission, and secondly guidelines are not necessarily enshrined in law, unless you can perhaps quote the law to which you are referring?

I believe the interview was broadcast live on all the news channels including Sky and the BBC. Of course if you can provide evidence otherwise I'd be quite willing to change my view. As to those guidelines, are you really trying to suggest that SY in one of the highest profile investigations in the last 40 years involving a couple who have already made threats to sue another police force if they found they had not played by the book, would stray from accepted guidelines and if so why ?