UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Angelo222 on May 15, 2013, 12:47:12 PM
-
Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story and a cover up for 6 years?
This is where the conspiracists theories fall down. No group of people put in such a situation have ever been able to maintain an accord of silence and in the end one or more always speak out.
-
Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story and a cover up for 6 years?
This is where the conspiracists theories fall down. No group of people put in such a situation have ever been able to maintain an accord of silence and in the end one or more always speak out.
Of course they couldn't, Angelo. Do you think Jane Tanner, David Payne, and the others that have been pulled apart, wouldn't say "stuff this", and speak out?
-
Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story and a cover up for 6 years?
This is where the conspiracists theories fall down. No group of people put in such a situation have ever been able to maintain an accord of silence and in the end one or more always speak out.
Very reminiscent of the Bamber case - apparently that involves dozens and dozens of police officers over a period of nearly 30 years, and there hasn't been a peep, even though a huge reward was on offer. >@@(*&)
-
I tend to agree, if anyone was going to break ranks and speak out they would have done so out of conscience long ago. If there had been any wrongdoing by the McCanns I don't think they would still be together as the cracks would be hard to hide.
-
All those dogs parading everywhere isn't very scientific as was four more lettings after the McCanns had left. No wonder Eddie and Keela alerted in the McCanns apartment and not in anyone elses. Out of curiosity did Eddie or Keela alert in the second apartment or the villa that the McCanns used or was that never disclosed as it was a negative?
-
All those dogs parading everywhere isn't very scientific as was four more lettings after the McCanns had left. No wonder Eddie and Keela alerted in the McCanns apartment and not in anyone elses. Out of curiosity did Eddie or Keela alert in the second apartment or the villa that the McCanns used or was that never disclosed as it was a negative?
You're right!
Instead it's very scientific to take the word of those hat would be the primary suspects in such a crime.
-
Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story and a cover up for 6 years?
This is where the conspiracists theories fall down. No group of people put in such a situation have ever been able to maintain an accord of silence and in the end one or more always speak out.
Considering that all of them were more or less neglectful of their children and some could be indicted also, keeping a secret is the minimum they could do - if in fact there were no adults with the children. Because in that case there would be a further reason to keep quiet.
-
The Portuguese Prosecutor found no evidence of any crime including neglect!
-
Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story and a cover up for 6 years?
This is where the conspiracists theories fall down. No group of people put in such a situation have ever been able to maintain an accord of silence and in the end one or more always speak out.
Considering that all of them were more or less neglectful of their children and some could be indicted also, keeping a secret is the minimum they could do - if in fact there were no adults with the children. Because in that case there would be a further reason to keep quiet.
The relevant authorities have already looked into this matter. IF there was a case for 'neglect' neither the UK nor the Portuguese authorities would have waited years later to accuse or charge them.
-
All those dogs parading everywhere isn't very scientific as was four more lettings after the McCanns had left. No wonder Eddie and Keela alerted in the McCanns apartment and not in anyone elses. Out of curiosity did Eddie or Keela alert in the second apartment or the villa that the McCanns used or was that never disclosed as it was a negative?
Allowing the apartment to be re-let while the investigation was still in the early stages was an astonishingly poor decision
-
But they all openly admitted to the police the very next day that they had left their children sleeping with periodic checks. It never was a secret.
Had they not "openly admitted", the PJ wouldn't have discovered ?
-
But they all openly admitted to the police the very next day that they had left their children sleeping with periodic checks. It never was a secret.
Had they not "openly admitted", the PJ wouldn't have discovered ?
Yes, of course. But my point was in answer to Luz that it was hardly a secret.
-
So the entire group is supposed to have covered up the death, or even murder, of a child motivated by their desire not to be charged with neglect, but then immediately admit to alleged "neglect" by telling police they left the children alone between periodic checks?
Yes, I can see that makes a lot of sense.... (rolls eyes)
-
None of their friends would help cover up anything IMO, perhaps at a stretch a best friend, but they may have told white lies for them
-
I do not understand the premise being made here ... that in order for the McCanns to have been involved in their child's disappearance, it would be necessary for all other members of the tapas group to have been involved too
Why ?
Why would all the friends need to have been aware of it and be complicit in a cover up ?
-
Well, feel free to present your theory then, if you have one, that explains HOW the parents are responsible, with or without the help of friends.
-
I do not understand the premise being made here ... that in order for the McCanns to have been involved in their child's disappearance, it would be necessary for all other members of the tapas group to have been involved too
Why ?
Why would all the friends need to have been aware of it and be complicit in a cover up ?
Dunno. I think the idea that they would have done started here:
Luz
Full Member
***
Posts: 301
We are on probation
View Profile
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story?
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2013, 02:29:14 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Angelo222 on May 15, 2013, 12:47:12 PM
Does anyone really believe for a second that the Tapas 7 could maintain a story and a cover up for 6 years?
This is where the conspiracists theories fall down. No group of people put in such a situation have ever been able to maintain an accord of silence and in the end one or more always speak out.
Considering that all of them were more or less neglectful of their children and some could be indicted also, keeping a secret is the minimum they could do - if in fact there were no adults with the children. Because in that case there would be a further reason to keep quiet.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1563.msg46351#msg46351
-
Well, feel free to present your theory then, if you have one, that explains HOW the parents are responsible, with or without the help of friends.
I am responding to the theory that is being purported here, on this thread ... that all the tapas friends would, necessarily, have to be aware and complicit if the McCanns had something to do with their child's disappearance
Why would they have to be ?
-
Because it would have been impossible for them to do it themselves given known facts. As the public prosecutor pointed out in his legal summary.
-
I do not understand the premise being made here ... that in order for the McCanns to have been involved in their child's disappearance, it would be necessary for all other members of the tapas group to have been involved too
Why ?
Why would all the friends need to have been aware of it and be complicit in a cover up ?
its a pathetic theory, assumption, statement etc
-
Because it would have been impossible for them to do it themselves given known facts. As the public prosecutor pointed out in his legal summary.
The Prosecutor said that ?!
.... that the McCanns could only be involved if every one of the tapas group were involved also ?
I'm sure he didn't
-
No, his exact words, if I recall correctly, was "with the help of whom".
-
No, his exact words, if I recall correctly, was "with the help of whom".
If we are working on assumptions, we could assume that the 'help' came from just one of the tapas friends then ? ... or two perhaps ?
Which changes the composition of the thread premise markedly
All seven friends being aware and complicit is as unlikely enough as to be almost inconceivable ... but just one or two others sharing a dark and terrible secret ?
That is not quite so unfathomable
-
No, his exact words, if I recall correctly, was "with the help of whom".
If we are working on assumptions, we could assume that the 'help' came from just one of the tapas friends then ? ... or two perhaps ?
Which changes the composition of the thread premise markedly
All seven friends being aware and complicit is as unlikely enough as to be almost inconceivable ... but just one or two others sharing a dark and terrible secret ?
That is not quite so unfathomable
"whom" is interrogative, not relative.
-
The McCanns would have needed the entire group to be in on it from the beginning if there was anything suspicious or illegal going on? Had they not been in on it, it would only have taken one person to spill the beans for it all to fall apart big style. All said and done a conspiracy between the tapas 9 is a highly unlikely scenario in my opinion.
-
No, his exact words, if I recall correctly, was "with the help of whom".
If we are working on assumptions, we could assume that the 'help' came from just one of the tapas friends then ? ... or two perhaps ?
Which changes the composition of the thread premise markedly
All seven friends being aware and complicit is as unlikely enough as to be almost inconceivable ... but just one or two others sharing a dark and terrible secret ?
That is not quite so unfathomable
On the contrary, it's entirely unfathomable from my point of view, if I thought any of my friends were capable of being so utterly morally corrupt as to agree to cover up the death of a child for the benefit of another friend, I certainly wouldn't want them anywhere near me & they certainly would not be friends of mine anymore. Who on earth would even WANT friends like that?
-
The McCanns would have needed the entire group to be in on it from the beginning if there was anything suspicious or illegal going on? Had they not been in on it, it would only have taken one person to spill the beans for it all to fall apart big style. All said and done a conspiracy between the tapas 9 is a highly unlikely scenario in my opinion.
I agree. If you were to ask any sceptic whether they would agree to become accessories to the crime of aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child, they would say 'No way!' - and so why would they think that 7 other perfectly normal, ordinary people would be any different to them. Especially as some of them were not even close friends of the McCanns.s
-
The McCanns would have needed the entire group to be in on it from the beginning if there was anything suspicious or illegal going on? Had they not been in on it, it would only have taken one person to spill the beans for it all to fall apart big style. All said and done a conspiracy between the tapas 9 is a highly unlikely scenario in my opinion.
Why though ?
Why would the entire group have to have been 'in on it' ?
What is your reasoning for coming to that conclusion ?
-
If you were to ask any sceptic whether they would agree to become accessories to the crime of aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child, they would say 'No way!' - and so why would they think that 7 other perfectly normal, ordinary people would be any different to them. Especially as some of them were not even close friends of the McCanns.s
Benice, why are you so sure a "sceptic" would say "no way !" ? I wouldn't say so. Does it prove I'm not a "sceptic" ?
-
Once again we can take guidance from the AG's legal summary
On the other hand, it also results that none of the parents was inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared and that their behaviour until the moment of the disappearance was perfectly normal, not manifesting any kind of preoccupation or any other similar feeling, contrary to what happened after that moment when the state of panic was notorious.
So, we know that the McCann went through their daily routine acting exactly as they previously had, showing no signs of stress, turmoil or odd behaviour. In fact nobody has given any reason or raised any concerns about suspicious goings on with regard to the McCann or anyone else within their group of friends. Quite the opposite, they are described by staff, waiters, etc who came in contact with them over the week as a happy, carefree bunch of people enjoying their holiday.
I agree with the AG. The documented behaviour of the so called Tapas friends & the McCann is simply not consistent with the suggestion that they (as a group or individually) were in the process of covering up a major crime involving the death of one of their children.
-
If you were to ask any sceptic whether they would agree to become accessories to the crime of aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child, they would say 'No way!' - and so why would they think that 7 other perfectly normal, ordinary people would be any different to them. Especially as some of them were not even close friends of the McCanns.s
Benice, why are you so sure a "sceptic" would say "no way !" ? I wouldn't say so. Does it prove I'm not a "sceptic" ?
Did you misunderstand the question, Anne? Because your reply implies that you WOULD agree to cover up the death of of a child for one of your friends? Surely, you didn't mean that.....
-
I understood very well.
I observe it happens in courts that a person prefers lying to admitting the crime he/she's accused of, because admitting is psychologically unbearable. The gathered evidence is so incriminating that the sentence will be very tough if he/she denies. But he/she does.
It's easy to figure that out. In the case of a paedophile it happens not rarely : better spend your life in jail with a shadow of justice's mistake, than risk the despise of your daughter.
Had I a friend in a terrible situation, I would certainly not say "no way" without meditating before.
-
Fine, you'd be OK with covering up the death of a child for a friend. I fully understand.
-
Excuse me ... but Christ Almighty.
I cannot believe what I am reading. To even consider covering up the reason for the death of a child, of any one, is beyond belief to me.
-
Hmm, yes, makes you wonder what question will pop up next. "How many of the Tapas group friends were murderous lunatics with psychopathic tendencies" or similar...
-
Excuse me ... but Christ Almighty.
I cannot believe what I am reading. To even consider covering up the reason for the death of a child, of any one, is beyond belief to me.
Then you'll probably go to heaven and I'll go to hell for not rejecting a terrible question with a saint "no way" !
-
I am no saint Anne, but I would never dream of doing what you think is OK
BTW. I am not religious. I do not believe in Heaven and Hell. They were invented by religious organisations to keep the people in order and on their side.
-
I am no saint Anne, but I would never dream of doing what you think is OK
Do you realise Anne, that you have now lost your integrity
BTW. I am not religious. I do not believe in Heaven and Hell. They were invented by religious organisations to keep the people in order and on their side.
Sadie, I've not judged you but your "you now lost your integrity" does.
I didn't use "OK" nor said more than this : I would meditate if a friend asked for my help. I'm an atheist but I'm not deaf to others, especially when I love them.
-
If you were to ask any sceptic whether they would agree to become accessories to the crime of aiding and abetting the disposal of a dead child, they would say 'No way!' - and so why would they think that 7 other perfectly normal, ordinary people would be any different to them. Especially as some of them were not even close friends of the McCanns.s
Benice, why are you so sure a "sceptic" would say "no way !" ? I wouldn't say so. Does it prove I'm not a "sceptic" ?
Anne.
I know that you are compasionate in ways. You have shown that to me on another thread and i thank you for that.
To remind you of what you said above. Prior to this, I had noticed you and Icabod as having integrity, the most of the [ censored word] and the most balanced arguments.
Some have none, but I will not name them
I shall remove my words about your having lost your integrity and leave others to judge from what you said.
-
No, his exact words, if I recall correctly, was "with the help of whom".
If we are working on assumptions, we could assume that the 'help' came from just one of the tapas friends then ? ... or two perhaps ?
Which changes the composition of the thread premise markedly
All seven friends being aware and complicit is as unlikely enough as to be almost inconceivable ... but just one or two others sharing a dark and terrible secret ?
That is not quite so unfathomable
"whom" is interrogative, not relative.
Your English usage is interesting to the point of indeciperability.
What do you mean by that statement?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_%28pronoun%29
Very decipherable for a anglophone.
-
Good, while you're at it - look up VERBATIM QUOTES
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_%28pronoun%29
Very decipherable for a anglophone.
You misunderstand
'Who' is interrogative and relative-
Interrogative: "Who's there?",
Relative: "The man who wore the hat."
Whom is a form of the relative type of 'who', never the interrogative.
It always means 'to', or 'from', or 'with' etc as a relative pronoun in its objective form.
Please do not pretend to understand the niceties of English when you are not as skilled as you think you are.
-
And don't always trust Wikipedia.
One of its examples is so wrong as to be laughable!
-
Anne Guedes
for a forum to expose your shortcomings of the correct usage of the English language
you probably could have not picked a worse one than this
translator that you are (not)