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: Redblossom on August 05, 2013, 09:31:20 PM
-
Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard
then again if you were complicit in any crime, would you ever stop trying to evade it?/consequences
>@@(*&)
-
Once you've lied about something, you're bound to lie for ever. The secret is to repeat and repeat your lie, taking care not to vary too much.
Lying and not saying the truth shouldn't be confounded. Lying supposes an intention. The liar knows he lies, does it intentionally to mask the truth. How could he confess without being terribly humiliated ?
Not saying the truth isn't intentional but the effect of ignorance or disinformation. To admit it doesn't affect your pride.
Seems you are an expert on lying.
You have already recorded on this forum that you would lie to save a friend from conviction.
-
Well i would argue they couldn't have withdrawn from the limelight even if they wanted to.
In 2007, it was about clearing their name and "expunging" as that Lovely Mr smethurst put it.
Then in 2008 it was about cleaning up the fall out from the Rogatory letters, their failed attempt to take Leicestershire Police to court and get their hands on the latter's evidence, and then the Eurostart trip to spin the archiving report to get their favoured "no evidence" claim in the public domain.
Then of course the Truth of the Lie came out and then with that, there was no chance of them ever being out of the limelight or taking a backseat.
Here's some evidence to support:
Madeleine, page 190, "We had made a strategic decision to signal to the media that we would be withdrawing from the spotlight."
Gerry McCann STV interview August 24 2007, "We could not avoid the publicity; we never asked for it, we never wished we were in this situation. What we've done is to try and use it in a positive way to affect the outcome. In terms of the campaign, we said 60 or 70 days ago that we would be stepping back from it, and we've done very very little offensive media in terms of us coming out to campaign for Madeleine."
Project Expunge, Smethurst on BBC Panorama transcript, winter 2007. See Assange extradition proceedings for examples of how, despite the theoretical limitations on the right to challenge a European Arrest Warrant, public opinion can be used to pressure or delay a verdict up to cabinet level.
High level media spin for the Eurostar Brussels trip complete with photographs of KM on the railway platform before departing. "It just so happened," writes KM in Madeleine, page 298, "that the PJ's trip to the UK [for the rogatory interviews] coincided with our visit to Brussels." Indeed.
Connoisseurs of McCann-speak will relish KM's description of the origin of those interviews. Rather than the culmination of a lengthy and complex stage in the investigation into the two arguidos, prepared over months by the Portuguese prosecutors' department and established under international treaty agreements, we have her breezy version of how they really came about earlier on the same page 298:
"You'll recall that, back in October, we had supplied the Portuguese public prosecutor with a list of people whom we felt statements should have been taken. In response the Portuguese police had decided to come to Leicester to be present while the British police interviewed Fiona... [and the others]. The questions to be asked were those Gerry and I had suggested to the prosecutor (obvious and pertinent ones, I hasten to add) with a few additions from the PJ."
Yes we have a claim from Kate that it was her and Gerry who decided the witnesses and the questions as part of the Rogatory interviews!
Oops! Another lie there Kate, to add to the list!
-
No veronal, no phenobarbital, no valium ! Like a log !
What is your secret Anne! I find it hard to nod off most nights!
Sorry folks, back on topic now!
I'm having a think about points in this thread, but can I just start with this one:
Would guilty people be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral and Bennett? I think not. It would be gaining money by deception and if they were guilty and it came out they would be in even more trouble.
-
I am repeating myself here so apologies in advance folks, but I will say it again:
Would guilty people ask for a SY review? Who would want the Yard poking around? It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Just going to make a strong coffee then will be back with more thoughts and opinions! 8((()*/
-
What is your secret Anne! I find it hard to nod off most nights!
Sorry folks, back on topic now!
I'm having a think about points in this thread, but can I just start with this one:
Would guilty people be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral and Bennett? I think not. It would be gaining money by deception and if they were guilty and it came out they would be in even more trouble.
Do you remember Jeffrey Archer Rachel ?
-
Do you remember Jeffrey Archer Rachel ?
I do, but I must say that this is a bit more serious? The disappearance of a child as opposed to perjury (I think what's what Archer was jailed for?).
Sorry, I just can't accept that guilty people would be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral/Bennett. In fact, if they were complicit and the truth came out they would probably get a longer sentence for the fraud agains the press etc than for being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?
-
Do you remember Jeffrey Archer Rachel ?
Or Jonathan Aitken for that matter.
-
I do, but I must say that this is a bit more serious? The disappearance of a child as opposed to perjury (I think what's what Archer was jailed for?).
Sorry, I just can't accept that guilty people would be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral/Bennett. In fact, if they were complicit and the truth came out they would probably get a longer sentence for the fraud agains the press etc than for being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?
If they were to be found guilty of the child's disappearance then suing the press would be the least of their worries.
-
I am repeating myself here so apologies in advance folks, but I will say it again:
Would guilty people ask for a SY review? Who would want the Yard poking around? It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
Just going to make a strong coffee then will be back with more thoughts and opinions! 8((()*/
Well a review of evidence gathered is one thing (which is what they asked for). We know the evidence gathered was not enough to take to a trial.
What they never can have expected, i believe, is for a SY reinvestigation as that is unprecedented. What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil. When did that ever happen? Look at the furore over in Portugal about it.
So campaigning for a review of evidence gathered was in my opinion as a means to get validation for the "no evidence" claim, safe in the knoweldge that SY would not be able to investigate in Portugal.
Now that that appears to be happening i wonder if that is what the McCann's really wanted as at some point it will have to address the issues on which the Portuguese enquiry ended, i.e. around the statements and actions of the group.
-
If they were to be found guilty of the child's disappearance then suing the press would be the least of their worries.
Well yes, but there would be fraud charges too. They would be made to repay the money too? To me it would be madness for guilty people to go after the press, Amaral etc.
Surely they would just slink away into obscurity, I know we have had this debate before but for me it keeps on coming back to that really. You would heave a sigh of relief that you had got away with it and disappear into the sunset.
-
Dont be so silly, and drop it since you have lost the argument...and no, why on earth would I take her word for anything, its not worth much in my book, or hers actually, obviously it is to you alot, but I understand
Diane Webster also looked for Madeleine. As far as I know no-one saw her and only she has mentioned it. If that is true then do we have to assume therefore that without witnesses - she is lying.
IMO this is just another example of petty nitpicking with hindsight The rule seems to be that unless everything the McCanns did or said can be confirmed by independent witnesses then according to some - they are lying or it didn't happen. We cannot possibly know every single word that was spoken or every tiny move that was made by the McCanns and their friends that night. We only have a general idea.
To behave as if everything they did and everything they said is recorded in the files - and claim that if it isn't there it didn't happen, is totally unrealistic and also unfair IMO.
-
Well a review of evidence gathered is one thing (which is what they asked for). We know the evidence gathered was not enough to take to a trial.
What they never can have expected, i believe, is for a SY reinvestigation as that is unprecedented. What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil. When did that ever happen? Look at the furore over in Portugal about it.
So campaigning for a review of evidence gathered was in my opinion as a means to get validation for the "no evidence" claim, safe in the knoweldge that SY would not be able to investigate in Portugal.
Now that that appears to be happening i wonder if that is what the McCann's really wanted as at some point it will have to address the issues on which the Portuguese enquiry ended, i.e. around the statements and actions of the group.
Well I have to say that if I were complicit, I wouldn't want even a review - who on earth would want SY poking around at all? IMO guilty people wouldn't want any LE anywhere near it? Who's to say that even during a review the Yard could have spotted something that could have led to the McCanns being charged?
My turkey analogy comes into play again!
What furore in Portugal do you mean?
-
Well yes, but there would be fraud charges too. They would be made to repay the money too? To me it would be madness for guilty people to go after the press, Amaral etc.
Surely they would just slink away into obscurity, I know we have had this debate before but for me it keeps on coming back to that really. You would heave a sigh of relief that you had got away with it and disappear into the sunset.
Well as i said fraud would be the least of their worries. As would repaying press etc. This is a fight for their lives.
In relation to slinking into obscurity please see my previous post. They haven't been able to even if they wanted to:
Well i would argue they couldn't have withdrawn from the limelight even if they wanted to.
In 2007, it was about clearing their name and "expunging" as that Lovely Mr smethurst put it.
Then in 2008 it was about cleaning up the fall out from the Rogatory letters, their failed attempt to take Leicestershire Police to court and get their hands on the latter's evidence, and then the Eurostart trip to spin the archiving report to get their favoured "no evidence" claim in the public domain.
Then of course the Truth of the Lie came out and then with that, there was no chance of them ever being out of the limelight or taking a backseat.
Here's some evidence to support:
Madeleine, page 190, "We had made a strategic decision to signal to the media that we would be withdrawing from the spotlight."
Gerry McCann STV interview August 24 2007, "We could not avoid the publicity; we never asked for it, we never wished we were in this situation. What we've done is to try and use it in a positive way to affect the outcome. In terms of the campaign, we said 60 or 70 days ago that we would be stepping back from it, and we've done very very little offensive media in terms of us coming out to campaign for Madeleine."
Project Expunge, Smethurst on BBC Panorama transcript, winter 2007. See Assange extradition proceedings for examples of how, despite the theoretical limitations on the right to challenge a European Arrest Warrant, public opinion can be used to pressure or delay a verdict up to cabinet level.
High level media spin for the Eurostar Brussels trip complete with photographs of KM on the railway platform before departing. "It just so happened," writes KM in Madeleine, page 298, "that the PJ's trip to the UK [for the rogatory interviews] coincided with our visit to Brussels." Indeed.
Connoisseurs of McCann-speak will relish KM's description of the origin of those interviews. Rather than the culmination of a lengthy and complex stage in the investigation into the two arguidos, prepared over months by the Portuguese prosecutors' department and established under international treaty agreements, we have her breezy version of how they really came about earlier on the same page 298:
"You'll recall that, back in October, we had supplied the Portuguese public prosecutor with a list of people whom we felt statements should have been taken. In response the Portuguese police had decided to come to Leicester to be present while the British police interviewed Fiona... [and the others]. The questions to be asked were those Gerry and I had suggested to the prosecutor (obvious and pertinent ones, I hasten to add) with a few additions from the PJ."
Yes we have a claim from Kate that it was her and Gerry who decided the witnesses and the questions as part of the Rogatory interviews!
Oops! Another lie there Kate, to add to the list!
-
Well a review of evidence gathered is one thing (which is what they asked for). We know the evidence gathered was not enough to take to a trial.What they never can have expected, i believe, is for a SY reinvestigation as that is unprecedented. What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil. When did that ever happen? Look at the furore over in Portugal about it.
So campaigning for a review of evidence gathered was in my opinion as a means to get validation for the "no evidence" claim, safe in the knoweldge that SY would not be able to investigate in Portugal.
Now that that appears to be happening i wonder if that is what the McCann's really wanted as at some point it will have to address the issues on which the Portuguese enquiry ended, i.e. around the statements and actions of the group.
I disagree. We know that there was NO evidence to take them to trial.
Why would they want to waste years of their lives pushing for a review if they were guilty? The mental pressure alone of having to keep that charade up day in day out would be too much for anyone to endure for years. It simply makes no sense. If they were guilty they would have been mighty relieved that they got away with it and kept their heads down until it all faded away, which it would have done in a very short time. Everything the McCanns have done since they returned to the UK is the OPPOSITE of what guilty people would do. IMO
And let's face it Albertini - IMO if they had not pressed for a review - people like your goodself would be holding that up as proof that they were guilty because it they were not guilty they would be pressing for a review.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
-
Well as i said fraud would be the least of their worries. As would repaying press etc. This is a fight for their lives.
In relation to slinking into obscurity please see my previous post. They haven't been able to even if they wanted to:
Albertini, in response can I just echo what Benice has said above. Come on, the mental pressure of living a lie every day all these years would be torture. In my opinion, guilty people would have cracked long ago just living under this pressure.
-
What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil.
Not really so. They'll have a UK team observing what a PT police force will obtain at their request. Portugal being notorious for its hospitality, my guess is things will be fine as they were fine in 2007.
-
Diane Webster also looked for Madeleine. As far as I know no-one saw her and only she has mentioned it. If that is true then do we have to assume therefore that without witnesses - she is lying.
IMO this is just another example of petty nitpicking with hindsight The rule seems to be that unless everything the McCanns did or said can be confirmed by independent witnesses then according to some - they are lying or it didn't happen. We cannot possibly know every single word that was spoken or every tiny move that was made by the McCanns and their friends that night. We only have a general idea.
To behave as if everything they did and everything they said is recorded in the files - and claim that if it isn't there it didn't happen, is totally unrealistic and also unfair IMO.
Missed this.
Keep your hair on! its not nitpicking at all and your example about Diane Webster is not the same by any stretch. But never mind.
-
Albertini, in response can I just echo what Benice has said above. Come on, the mental pressure of living a lie every day all these years would be torture. In my opinion, guilty people would have cracked long ago just living under this pressure.
Redblossom said that.
I agree, but the affective relationships are the issue. What torture is the worst ? The torture of having lied with consequences I didn't foresee, a torture though that time has dimmed (because that's time work to build slowly indifference) or the torture of those I love if I confess and the terrible risk to lose their love for ever ?
-
Redblossom said that.
I agree, but the affective relationships are the issue. What torture is the worst ? The torture of having lied with consequences I didn't foresee, a torture though that time has dimmed (because that's time work to build slowly indifference) or the torture of those I love if I confess and the terrible risk to lose their love for ever ?
I've just tried to imagine how it must be living a lie, Anne. If they were complicit they would also be coping with guilt and grief. I don't think I could live like that even for a week, never mind years. Living in fear of a knock on the door from the police, fear of being exposed. Just my thoughts.
If they were complicit and confessed, I would hope that the family would support them? Hate the sin, love the sinnner and all that. Who knows.
-
Missed this.
Keep your hair on! its not nitpicking at all and your example about Diane Webster is not the same by any stretch. But never mind.
Why is it different for Diane Webster?
-------
Kate went out to speak to the GNR - she then went up and down the road looking for Madeleine - no-one else saw her. Big deal. Why do you think she should have regarded that as such a massive piece of information at the time - that she should have made sure she had witnesses and made sure she told everyone that's what she'd done. Why would she be even thinking like that? It's makes no sense. She ran up and down a road looking for her daughter. How could she know that years later some people would be demanding the evidence to prove it - and so she should have been making sure she had that evidence - or she wouldn't be believed?
If she could have seen into the future and known that every word she said and also every word she didn't say was going to be pored over and scrutinised in an attempt to find fault - then I'm sure she would have behaved differently. But she didn't know, so she behaved like any other normal human being - for which she is now being torn to shreds in some quarters - all with the benefit of hindsight. IMO
-
Why is it different for Diane Webster?
-------
Kate went out to speak to the GNR - she then went up and down the road looking for Madeleine - no-one else saw her. Big deal. Why do you think she should have regarded that as such a massive piece of information at the time - that she should have made sure she had witnesses and made sure she told everyone that's what she'd done. Why would she be even thinking like that? It's makes no sense. She ran up and down a road looking for her daughter. How could she know that years later some people would be demanding the evidence to prove it - and so she should have been making sure she had that evidence - or she wouldn't be believed?
If she could have seen into the future and known that every word she said and also every word she didn't say was going to be pored over and scrutinised in an attempt to find fault - then I'm sure she would have behaved differently. But she didn't know, so she behaved like any other normal human being - for which she is now being torn to shreds in some quarters - all with the benefit of hindsight. IMO
Yes, you are quite right obviously as always. but do lay off the exageration and dramatics,its, in Gerrys words, frankly boring.
-
Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard
then again if you were complicit in any crime, would you ever stop trying to evade it?/consequences
>@@(*&)
I'd agree, the profile they have kept up, keeping their child in the media eye is evidence of their not being involved.
If your child were missing, would you allow her to be forgotten, would you ever stop trying to find her?
-
I'd agree, the profile they have kept up, keeping their child in the media eye is evidence of their not being involved.
If your child were missing, would you allow her to be forgotten, would you ever stop trying to find her?
No, it is not evidence they were not involved.
-
You disagree with Redblossom's op then?
-
You disagree with Redblossom's op then?
Nope, i disagree with your assessment that their media campaign and public profile is evidence they are innocent.
-
Really? I was agreeing with Redblossom though.
-
Really? I was agreeing with Redblossom though.
Where does he say that it is evidence that they are innocent?
Also note the second paragraph from the OP:
then again if you were complicit in any crime, would you ever stop trying to evade it?/consequences
-
Posted on what she said here:
Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard
I addressed her second line also.
-
I've just tried to imagine how it must be living a lie, Anne. If they were complicit they would also be coping with guilt and grief. I don't think I could live like that even for a week, never mind years. Living in fear of a knock on the door from the police, fear of being exposed. Just my thoughts.
If they were complicit and confessed, I would hope that the family would support them? Hate the sin, love the sinnner and all that. Who knows.
I think the family would support them, some at least, through love, yes. But I'm not sure about their children, though there are two, that helps a lot. Shame would be a powerful argument to go forward, Rachel, actually imo it was the reason why all this started.
-
Posted on what she said here:
Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard
I addressed her second line also.
No you didn't.
And nowhere there does Redblossom says it is evidence of innocence.
Red is accepting in his/her post that it is a point why they would keep up their campaign but then half answers it by saying they need to keep it up to evade being caught and the consequences of it.
It's a fundamentally different point to the one you made about it being eivdence of innocence.
So back to you, how do you work out that this is evidence of innocence?
-
Posted on what she said here:
Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard
I addressed her second line also.
WhatI actually said was that their placing themselves in the limelight for so long is to me a possible / even probable indication, the only indication, for me at least, that Madeleine was abducted and they were uninvolved, and for all the reasons given by other posters here. Doesnt mean I or they are right. There have been cases where the guilty party pretended to the media, albeit never for so long afaiaw.
I do find it a struggle to think thry would live this lie, but what if theyhave no choice?
You dont know if its not a case of not being able to get off the tigers back!
Their reluctance to speak candidly and without a script and without throwing hissy fits and stropping at questions they didnt like, and answer unscreened questions and use spokespeople over the years reinforces my belief that they never told the truth.
I am also amazed that their first priority was to engage a comprehensive group of lawyers and consultants, in Gerrys own words, with the money they were given by the public to find their child. Then the frenzy of trying to discredit dogs, the pj, Mr Amaral, other people, and the rewriting of history in the scathing embroidery of the truth Book! And their uncountable interviews where they said one thing and said another elsewhere, etc,etc, and that is just a very small portion of reasons I have to doubt them
I could be wrong which is a bit more than some of your lot can muster
Btw its called honest informed opinion and there is no law against THAT thank heavens
-
Two groups of people who may have influenced some or all of their decisions about the continued campaigning and pressing for review: their (powerful) supporters, and their other children.
It may not look good to either if they hadn't taken these decisions? >@@(*&)
-
Two groups of people who may have influenced some or all of their decisions about the continued campaigning and pressing for review: their (powerful) supporters, and their other children.
It may not look good to either if they hadn't taken these decisions? >@@(*&)
Nice refreshing original opinion Lyall, thank you
-
Thanks RB 8(0(*
I'd think it's the future of their other children they worry about most, and that surely includes the opinions about their sister's fate/parents behaviour they'll have.
Sad case isn't it. They all are I guess.
-
Two groups of people who may have influenced some or all of their decisions about the continued campaigning and pressing for review: their (powerful) supporters, and their other children.
It may not look good to either if they hadn't taken these decisions? >@@(*&)
Certainly, they don't have much choice left. What is the part, in this situation, of our institutions ?
-
Thanks RB 8(0(*
I'd think it's the future of their other children they worry about most, and that surely includes the opinions about their sister's fate/parents behaviour they'll have.
Sad case isn't it. They all are I guess.
it is very sad whichever way it is
-No one apart from a small handful of people on the www think she was murdered or it was planned
- They lost their child
- If there was an accident involving them or not they may have panicked and not called it in for many reasons, that makes their further activies a lie and fraud in that scenario and or necessary evil for preservation of self and family, can thatbe forgiven? If the case? Not in my book
- The dog evidence cannot be disregarded IMO
- The tapas group have kept their mouth shuts all throughout the years, apart from Tanner and a dmall snippet from Rachel Oldfield on some radio programme, why?
- If she was abducted, then a scarlet pimpernel abductor is out there that for so many years no money, no govt, no 24/7/365 multi media,no multi country police or seven lots of PIS, volunteer searchers and investigators, spotters,reward money,multi millions spent by three police forces and many more millions with PIS, ex SAS involved, interpol, europol, biggest ever manhunt in history in Portugal, etc, or any other power can find a single iota of evidence or info for
>@@(*&)
what are the odds?
Then you come back to, well, if they know what happened, how did they get away with it?
-
I don't know RB. I just know I can't believe it was an abduction, however much the papers, supporters and now SY DCI's say it. Too much of the subsequent behaviour seems fake to me - especially their book.
I think it's always going to be a mystery.
I recently read Gordon Burn's book 'Born Yesterday' and he compares their other children to those of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - they're never going to escape it. Very sad for them, whatever we think of their parents.
-
I don't know RB. I just know I can't believe it was an abduction, however much the papers, supporters and now SY DCI's say it. Too much of the subsequent behaviour seems fake to me - especially their book.
I think it's always going to be a mystery.
I recently read Gordon Burn's book 'Born Yesterday' and he compares their other children to those of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - they're never going to escape it. Very sad for them, whatever we think of their parents.
My sentiments too, from the very first time I saw the news on that morning of May 4th, something smelled and it hasnt gone away, its gotten worse
I think the yanks refer to a hinky meter
Not heard of that book, off to google it.
PS the SY DCI never actually said it was an abduction, he just eggshelled and pussyfooted around that made it sound like that, he said there was an opportunity for an abduction, and an abduction is a criminal act by a stranger, woopie dooh
@)(++(*
he never said he or anyone else thought Madeleine was abducted
He must be between a rock and a hard place, poor bloke, in a worse position than lady gaga in her poker face stills
oh well, hogging the board and run out of ciggies so laters x
-
I know RB. You have to feel a bit sorry for the fella stuck in front of the cameras (only a bit though. "Not at all!" says Barry George)
-
I know RB. You have to feel a bit sorry for the fella stuck in front of the cameras (only a bit though. "Not at all!" says Barry George)
I dont know if it was Redwood personally that banged up BG up, if so, shame on him
his iq must have been lower than BGs to do that!!!!
-
Lots of points from lots of threads that tend to morf into one !
My own opinions on several points :
Wither they scoured the town all night or sat paralyzed with grief and shock on that night means little to me - it is small detail in a bigger picture. There was an independent witness - a member of GNR who said in a statement that he saw the couple out at 7.00am - but it doesnt mean much. The4 general advice in any situation like this is leave it to the experts - The PJ and the GNR would hardly have encouraged them to lead the search.
Even now you get many critics slating them because they are not back in portugal " searching " - which is just ridiculous - as if they should be in the town looking in bins and alleyways 7 years later .
we always come back to the same points - no evidence or smoking gun that they were involved atall apart from the dogs which has been discussed ad nauseam - I would be more likely to have taken it a bit more seriously until they alerted on the hire car - which just made the idea that the body was somehow moved weeks later just crazy.
But also true there is no smoking gun for the abductor either - lots of little snippets but nada ( so it seems to move the investigation onwards )
But the child is gone. We do know that there are sick people who DO kidnap , abduct and prey on young children. We also do know that there are parents who do abuse / mistreat their children. mostly parental abuse crimes get solved pretty quickly as it is so obvious and the child is known to the authorities
I also tend to agree with the argument that if they were directly involved , then they would not still be on news shows, running charity runs keeping the case so public . This to me would be the act of complete physcopaths and their background and life to date does not show that - they seem to have been talented people pursuing careers and raising a family - being slightly eccentric or odd does not a killer make. Not that I think they are - if anyone is put through the public tabloid ringer they will not come out well the other side, The tabloids smelt blood in the early days and the portrayals of the parents was pretty distasteful ( IMO )
but until this case is solved the smell of suspicion will always linger - even if it is solved I do think that there are certain groups who will always think them guilty
The one thing that is certain is someone took maddy - either parents/ friends disposed of a dead body for whatever reasons or person unknown abducted for reasons that I dont really want to think too much about
I still think that the later is more likely - for reasons that have been repeated often .
It still remains a total mystery - and why the case has gathered so much interest from The PM downwards and why certain individuals have gotten involved with support and cash,
-
even if it is solved I do think that there are certain groups who will always think them guilty
Do you also think that if the case were solved the other way round, certain groups would always think they're innocent ?
-
Do you also think that if the case were solved the other way round, certain groups would always think they're innocent ?
probably -
I have been a keen observer of this mystery since it hit the news in 2007 - from the first forums that have long gone now.
I too did think initially that it must be the parents - a natural type of reaction suppose
but over the first months looking at the timelines and the facts that came out - I just cant see how they could possibly have hidden the body so well for 6 weeks in such a limited time - remembering that dead bodeis in a hot climate would start to decompose almost from day 1 - the smell alone would have allerted people - and tehn move body in a hire car - just didnt seem feasible or even possible.
So with the information that I have seen / read that is the side of the fence I firmly sit. If new evidence was discovered that firmly proved me wrong I will admit I am wrong - - but at least will find out the truth - but wtill waiting for that day to arrive.
-
I don't know RB. I just know I can't believe it was an abduction, however much the papers, supporters and now SY DCI's say it. Too much of the subsequent behaviour seems fake to me - especially their book.
I think it's always going to be a mystery.
I recently read Gordon Burn's book 'Born Yesterday' and he compares their other children to those of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - they're never going to escape it. Very sad for them, whatever we think of their parents.
Haven't heard of the Gordon Burn book Lyall, is it a good read?
-
Surely if someone who was guilty of a crime of hiding their child's body would make it obvious that they were searching? Searching in full view of everyone and screaming and crying for good measure?
Someone guilty of this crime would then let it all die down. Fade away saying 'well we looked for years and there has been no sign of her, so sadly we must assume she is dead'.
This is a far cry to what the McCann's are doing.
The McCann's did search but when Kate went out by herself there were no witness's.
Amaral made a point of showing on video, Kate McCann out on the veranda looking as though she was crying
Making it sound that she was play acting. To me though it looked as though she had gone outside to be alone to cry in private. If she had wanted to put on a show all she had to do was leave the apartment, there were enough photographers there to take lots of photos then she could have cried for them.
During the appeal to the abductor, Kate McCann kept her tears at bay. There had been plenty it was said before she went before the camera. What a perfect time that would have been to have put on show.
For the past six years the McCann's have kept up the campaign to find Madeleine. They wanted a review they want the case to be opened.
That is not the actions of guilty parents. They could easily have let everything die down as say 'well we have searched for years and there has been no sign of Madeleine, sadly we have to come to the conclusion that she is dead'. They haven't done that quite the opposite in fact.
.
-
Haven't heard of the Gordon Burn book Lyall, is it a good read?
That may depend upon your view of the case. He clearly wasn't a fan of modern media and those who spin, and the way this case was reported obviously concerned him - as did the public's response to that reporting.
Poor fella died soon after writing it 8(8-)) so we'll never know now exactly what he meant.
-
That may depend upon your view of the case. He clearly wasn't a fan of modern media and those who spin, and the way this case was reported obviously concerned him - as did the public's response to that reporting.
Poor fella died soon after writing it 8(8-)) so we'll never know now exactly what he meant.
OK thanks I will look out for it at the library.
-
I find interesting the mention of the Rosenberg little boys (at the time). These poor boys (luckily two) grew up willing to prove their parents' innocence (remember Ethel wrote some hours before the execution they were innocent, "not capable to betray their conscience"..), a rather popular idea among intellectuals. But they welcomed the truth with dignity when by chance it popped up.
-
Both sons seem to be remarkable people AG, like their parents. You are better informed about that case than me 8((()*/ (I had a quick search though)
-
Both sons seem to be remarkable people AG, like their parents. You are better informed about that case than me 8((()*/ (I had a quick search though)
Their execution is a shame anyhow. Ethel's brother played a very weird game.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/nyregion/12spy.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0
-
I think the family would support them, some at least, through love, yes. But I'm not sure about their children, though there are two, that helps a lot. Shame would be a powerful argument to go forward, Rachel, actually imo it was the reason why all this started.
Just my personal thoughts here Anne, but I cannot imagine anyone living under that fear for so long, the fear of SY finding something, the fear of the knock on the door.
I really hope that no-one on the forum has been unfortunate enough to suffer from panic/fear attacks and agoraphobia but I have. The fear is horrible. It is sheer terror. To actually have to live with fear for so many years, I just can't fathom it. I don't want to sound over-dramatic but I believe it could kill someone. JMO.
-
I believe that too, Rachel, read Maupassant's Horla.
But there's more terrible to fear than the pot aux roses revealed : the look of those you love on you.
-
Surely if someone who was guilty of a crime of hiding their child's body would make it obvious that they were searching? Searching in full view of everyone and screaming and crying for good measure?
Someone guilty of this crime would then let it all die down. Fade away saying 'well we looked for years and there has been no sign of her, so sadly we must assume she is dead'.
This is a far cry to what the McCann's are doing.
The McCann's did search but when Kate went out by herself there were no witness's.
Amaral made a point of showing on video, Kate McCann out on the veranda looking as though she was crying
Making it sound that she was play acting. To me though it looked as though she had gone outside to be alone to cry in private. If she had wanted to put on a show all she had to do was leave the apartment, there were enough photographers there to take lots of photos then she could have cried for them.
During the appeal to the abductor, Kate McCann kept her tears at bay. There had been plenty it was said before she went before the camera. What a perfect time that would have been to have put on show.
For the past six years the McCann's have kept up the campaign to find Madeleine. They wanted a review they want the case to be opened.
That is not the actions of guilty parents. They could easily have let everything die down as say 'well we have searched for years and there has been no sign of Madeleine, sadly we have to come to the conclusion that she is dead'. They haven't done that quite the opposite in fact.
Apparently she was advised to make every effort NOT to cry in front of the media, because the sort of man who enjoyed hurting little children would be turned on by her crying. I have no idea whether this is true, but it was talked about in the early days
However, what she was like away from the media is another matter.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
The following day we saw Kate McCann when she came to collect the twins from the creche at lunchtime, she was distraught and broke down sobbing.
We didn't have any other involvement with their group for the remainder of our holiday and flew home on the Saturday. On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.
It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.
Yep and as said in Laces post, she went out searching when no-one was around, so no-one saw the state she was in.
Cant remember whether it was Rachels statement, or Fionas, but that tore my heart apart as I re-read it a couple of days ago.
How ignoramouses can sit around being judgemental about people they know little, or nothing about, does my faith in human nature in
-
Apparently she was advised to make every effort NOT to cry in front of the media, because the sort of man who enjoyed hurting little children would be turned on by her crying. I have no idea whether this is true, but it was talked about in the early days
However, what she was like away from the media is another matter.
And you have inadvertently knocked down one of the key tenets of the theory they could not be involved. The idea that they couldn't hide or mask their feelings if they were involved is rather shot down in flames as we know that they were told to mask their real feelings to the media and they could indeed do it.
What you are syaing fits in with my own belief that there is primary source evidence that when required or considered to be necessary the parents, particularly Kate McCann, are extremely skilled at masking their real feelings very successfully even when under enormous emotional and other stress.
Indeed even Menezez seems to have been taken in by it stating in the final report:
"the normal behaviour that they adopted until the disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements."
Oprah transcript:
'Four days after Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns held another press conference pleading for their daughter's safe return. Kate remained calm as she spoke, but the tabloids would use her appearance against her, saying her lack of emotion implied guilt. "I'd spent 72 hours crying, and you suddenly almost feel a little bit numb," Kate says. She'd also spoken with a behavioural expert who'd given specific advice on how to act at the press conference, Kate says. "They said, 'It's quite important that you don't show any emotion, because the abductor could get some kind of adverse kick out of it,'" she says. "When you get the feeling that if you do [something] it could be detrimental in some way to your daughter, there's a huge pressure on you to do well."
Though it may have done more harm than good, Kate says she doesn't regret taking the behavioural expert's advice. "It was advice given with the best intention," she says.'
And from Madeleine, page 112:
'In fact I would soon be advised by British police experts to try and stay as calm as possible and not to show any emotion in public, so it was probably no bad thing that my feelings seemed to be temporarily on holiday that day. The thinking behind this advice was that Madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick pout of my distress and perhaps change his behaviour in some way.'
She adds: 'Of course we were terrified by the implications of this theory. It meant that quite natural actions or expressions of emotion caught on camera could potentially jeopardise Madeleine's safety.'
-
WhatI actually said was that their placing themselves in the limelight for so long is to me a possible / even probable indication, the only indication, for me at least, that Madeleine was abducted and they were uninvolved, and for all the reasons given by other posters here. Doesnt mean I or they are right. There have been cases where the guilty party pretended to the media, albeit never for so long afaiaw.
I do find it a struggle to think thry would live this lie, but what if theyhave no choice?
You dont know if its not a case of not being able to get off the tigers back!
Their reluctance to speak candidly and without a script and without throwing hissy fits and stropping at questions they didnt like, and answer unscreened questions and use spokespeople over the years reinforces my belief that they never told the truth.
I am also amazed that their first priority was to engage a comprehensive group of lawyers and consultants, in Gerrys own words, with the money they were given by the public to find their child. Then the frenzy of trying to discredit dogs, the pj, Mr Amaral, other people, and the rewriting of history in the scathing embroidery of the truth Book! And their uncountable interviews where they said one thing and said another elsewhere, etc,etc, and that is just a very small portion of reasons I have to doubt them
I could be wrong which is a bit more than some of your lot can muster
Btw its called honest informed opinion and there is no law against THAT thank heavens
That's a shame, I thought you had posted something I agreed with. Never mind.
-
And you have inadvertently knocked down one of the key tenets of the theory they could not be involved. The idea that they couldn't hide or mask their feelings if they were involved is rather shot down in flames as we know that they were told to mask their real feelings to the media and they could indeed do it.
What you are syaing fits in with my own belief that there is primary source evidence that when required or considered to be necessary the parents, particularly Kate McCann, are extremely skilled at masking their real feelings very successfully even when under enormous emotional and other stress.
Indeed even Menezez seems to have been taken in by it stating in the final report:
"the normal behaviour that they adopted until the disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements."
Oprah transcript:
'Four days after Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns held another press conference pleading for their daughter's safe return. Kate remained calm as she spoke, but the tabloids would use her appearance against her, saying her lack of emotion implied guilt. "I'd spent 72 hours crying, and you suddenly almost feel a little bit numb," Kate says. She'd also spoken with a behavioural expert who'd given specific advice on how to act at the press conference, Kate says. "They said, 'It's quite important that you don't show any emotion, because the abductor could get some kind of adverse kick out of it,'" she says. "When you get the feeling that if you do [something] it could be detrimental in some way to your daughter, there's a huge pressure on you to do well."
Though it may have done more harm than good, Kate says she doesn't regret taking the behavioural expert's advice. "It was advice given with the best intention," she says.'
And from Madeleine, page 112:
'In fact I would soon be advised by British police experts to try and stay as calm as possible and not to show any emotion in public, so it was probably no bad thing that my feelings seemed to be temporarily on holiday that day. The thinking behind this advice was that Madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick pout of my distress and perhaps change his behaviour in some way.'
She adds: 'Of course we were terrified by the implications of this theory. It meant that quite natural actions or expressions of emotion caught on camera could potentially jeopardise Madeleine's safety.'
The point I was trying to make faithfully is that Kate McCann could have cried in front of the cameras. Whatever she was told [and yes she did take their advice and didn't cry] if she was guilty of a crime and wanted to get the media on her side she could have broken down and cried couldn't she?
If you look at Kate when she is giving the appeal, she shows a lot of control, you can see that she is keeping herself in check.
-
Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard
then again if you were complicit in any crime, would you ever stop trying to evade it?/consequences
>@@(*&)
The opening post of this thread quoted above is simply incorrect and rather blatantly and in my opinion very oddly, ignores the most crucial sign that the McCanns were not involved.
The crucial point is that there is no evidence against them.
And there is a judicial document which summarises the entire case and concludes that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
Perhaps you missed it.
It concludes:
Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.
For someone who supposedly takes a genuine interest in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine I find it really odd that you have completely missed this crucial sign that her parents were not involved in that disappearance.
Perhaps you could explain this rather significant oversight on your part.
-
The opening post of this thread quoted above is simply incorrect and rather blatantly and in my opinion very oddly, ignores the most crucial sign that the McCanns were not involved.
The crucial point is that there is no evidence against them.
And there is a judicial document which summarises the entire case and concludes that there is no evidence against the McCanns.
Perhaps you missed it.
It concludes:
For someone who supposedly takes a genuine interest in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine I find it really odd that you have completely missed this crucial sign that her parents were not involved in that disappearance.
Perhaps you could explain this rather significant oversight on your part.
is that what it meant? rather than no evidence of any crime hence case was shelved and arguido status lifted? or did it mean there was no evidence against the arguidos so they had their status lifted but also decided to shelve the case? devils in the detail isnt it and when you have to rely on translations one is never 100% sure is one? happy to be corrected obviously. Any case, thats not what the thread was about.
-
is that what it meant? rather than no evidence of any crime hence case was shelved and arguido status lifted? or did it mean there was no evidence against the arguidos so they had their status lifted but also decided to shelve the case? devils in the detail isnt it and when you have to rely on translations one is never 100% sure is one? happy to be corrected obviously. Any case, thats not what the thread was about.
Perhaps unlike you I don't have to rely on translations.
And as you say, devil's in the detail.
I am fully aware of what the Prosecutor was stating in that archival report.
-
Perhaps unlike you I don't have to rely on translations.
And as you say, devil's in the detail.
I am fully aware of what the Prosecutor was stating in that archival report.
Thats nice for you
-
Thats nice for you
Quite and for you a shame too, because you do seem to have to rely on these translations and that will never allow you to find the real truth about the contents of the files.
-
Quite and for you a shame too, because you do seem to have to rely on these translations and that will never allow you to find the real truth about the contents of the files.
Quite a generalising and sweeping statement
@)(++(*
And what is in the files, so grossly mistranslated as you suggest,or not as the case may be, is not the only source of information in this case.
-
Quite a generalising and sweeping statement
@)(++(*
And what is in the files, so grossly mistranslated as you suggest,or not as the case may be, is not the only source of information in this case.
So what are your other sources of facts about the case?
Don't tell me the news media? Now that would be funny.
And don't tell me it is Amaral's books and interviews because that would be even funnier when the man himself told us that his purpose in writing was to defend his reputation as much as anything else.
-
So what are your other sources of facts about the case?
Don't tell me the news media? Now that would be funny.
And don't tell me it is Amaral's books and interviews because that would be even funnier when the man himself told us that his purpose in writing was to defend his reputation as much as anything else.
You cant be too good on reading and memory recall as I already ruled out those two sources on another thread
@)(++(*
-
You cant be too good on reading and memory recall as I already ruled out those two sources
@)(++(*
And you cannot be too clever about bluffing because it is you claiming to have other sources but you who are failing to tell the world what they might be.
I am just clarifying that you are not using those as sources.
Now what are these sources of facts about the case that you claim exist which might support your point of view?
-
And you cannot be too clever about bluffing because it is you claiming to have other sources but you who are failing to tell the world what they might be.
I am just clarifying that you are not using those as sources.
Now what are these sources of facts about the case that you claim exist which might support your point of view?
Are you debunkers twin?
there are many sources of information in this case, NONE of which are 100% wrong or right, some having more weight than others, just using your god given nous normally leads you in the right direction, and no I never claimed to have any sources of info that anyone else here has
@)(++(*
-
Are you debunkers twin?
there are many sources of information in this case, NONE of which are 100% wrong or right, some having more weight than others, just using your god given nous normally leads you in the right direction, and no I never claimed to have any sources of info that anyone else here has
@)(++(*
So you have failed to show us what you are talking about and prefer to post abuse towards me to hide your failure.
I didn't say you claimed any such thing. But you did claim that there are other sources which you have patently failed to list.
-
So you have failed to show us what you are talking about and prefer to post abuse towards me to hide your failure.
I didn't say you claimed any such thing. But you did claim that there are other sources which you have patently failed to list.
So overdramatic as always. No one has to spell every single iota out for you when making comments. Its not hard to figure out that there are many sources of information on the case from which people glean what they do, thnk about it and make their own minds up
Its like spaghetti soup sometimes
Pj files
Print media
Radio interviews
Tv interviews
Magazine interviews
Documentaries
Editorial footage
Personal blogs,GMs that is and KMs book
Plethora of comment from laymen to professionals
That enough?
-
So overdramatic as always. No one has to spell every single iota out for you when making comments. Its not hard to figure out that there are many sources of information on the case from which people glean what they do, thnk about it and make their own minds up
Its like spaghetti soup sometimes
Pj files
Print media
Radio interviews
Tv interviews
Magazine interviews
Documentaries
Editorial footage
Personal blogs,GMs that is and KMs book
Plethora of comment from laymen to professionals
That enough?
So says the Drama Queen 8)-)))
-
So you have failed to show us what you are talking about and prefer to post abuse towards me to hide your failure.
I didn't say you claimed any such thing. But you did claim that there are other sources which you have patently failed to list.
Are you really unable to understand what gilet is commenting on? Dooes it HAVE TO BE spelled out
Citations please for gilet
-
So overdramatic as always. No one has to spell every single iota out for you when making comments. Its not hard to figure out that there are many sources of information on the case from which people glean what they do, thnk about it and make their own minds up
Its like spaghetti soup sometimes
Pj files
Print media
Radio interviews
Tv interviews
Magazine interviews
Documentaries
Editorial footage
Personal blogs,GMs that is and KMs book
Plethora of comment from laymen to professionals
That enough?
It is quite revealing that you list all that lot as "evidence". Do you not realise how foolish that looks?
-
It is quite revealing that you list all that lot as "evidence". Do you not realise how foolish that looks?
Abuse ignored, did I state everything contained in all those is evidence of x y z? I said they are information sources!
-
So overdramatic as always. No one has to spell every single iota out for you when making comments. Its not hard to figure out that there are many sources of information on the case from which people glean what they do, thnk about it and make their own minds up
Its like spaghetti soup sometimes
Pj files
Print media
Radio interviews
Tv interviews
Magazine interviews
Documentaries
Editorial footage
Personal blogs,GMs that is and KMs book
Plethora of comment from laymen to professionals
That enough?
We all know these infirmation sources Red, but to go thru all those would take for ever .... and most are not reliable.
gilet asked for a citation, not a list of where you could look if you were barmy enough .... and had three weeks to spare