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: LagosBen on October 05, 2013, 07:06:39 PM
-
Someone with something to hide wouldn't have kept this whole case going for over 6 years if not to find their daughter.
Seriously, they have pushed, petitioned and asked for help from many quarters. They have never let it fade away.
The petition was for a Review -the hope was a Re-opening of the investigation into Madeline's abduction.
Are these the actions of guilty people?
If it were me and I had gotten away with a serious crime, probably not immediately, but at the right time I would let it fade and leave the country. Not keep on about it for six years
And please don't insult the intelligence of people on this forum by the usual "they dun it for the money" posts as that is total nonsense.
Have to go out now Ill leave you with it. Cheerio.
....heading edited slightly....
-
They could have had the investigation re opened at any time,
All they had to do was cooperate with the Portuguese police,
If they had nothing to hide & they really thought she could be found alive, they would have done so.
-
They could have had the investigation re opened at any time,
All they had to do was cooperate with the Portuguese police,
If they had nothing to hide & they really thought she could be found alive, they would have done so.
No they couldn't. Why was it closed in the first place.
Shame Amaral and his gang didn't want to cooperate with the McCann's. They were too hell bent on stitching Kate up.
-
Someone with something to hide wouldn't have kept this whole case going for over 6 years if not to find their daughter.
Seriously, they have pushed, petitioned and asked for help from many quarters. They have never let it fade away.
The petition was for a Review -the hope was a Re-opening of the investigation into Madeline's abduction.
Are these the actions of guilty people?
If it were me and I had gotten away with a serious crime, probably not immediately, but at the right time I would let it fade and leave the country. Not keep on about it for six years
And please don't insult the intelligence of people on this forum by the usual "they dun it for the money" posts as that is total nonsense.
Have to go out now Ill leave you with it. Cheerio.
....heading edited slightly....
Totally agree and if they were guilty and the others covered for them, then is it likely that those friends would sit back and watch the McCanns constantly 'playing with fire' and putting them at risk of being arrested as accomplices, year in year out ? The whole idea is ludicrous IMO. They would all have had nervous breakdowns by now with the stress of waiting for a knock on the door.
-
Totally agree and if they were guilty and the others covered for them, then is it likely that those friends would sit back and watch the McCanns constantly 'playing with fire' and putting them at risk of being arrested as accomplices, year in year out ? The whole idea is ludicrous IMO. They would all have had nervous breakdowns by now with the stress of waiting for a knock on the door.
They are largely invisible these days, so I suppose we have little idea of their state of mind.
-
No they couldn't. Why was it closed in the first place.
Shame Amaral and his gang didn't want to cooperate with the McCann's. They were too hell bent on stitching Kate up.
Rebelo was the coordinator when the case was shelved, not Amaral.
-
Why the McCanns keep going?
There is an old Chinese proverb: ''Ch'i 'hu nan hsia pei'', translated as ''He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.'' It could have some bearing!
-
Rebelo was the coordinator when the case was shelved, not Amaral.
Did I say Amaral was, NO.
No they couldn't. Why was it closed in the first place.
Shame Amaral and his gang didn't want to cooperate with the McCann's. They were too hell bent on stitching Kate up.
-
Did I say Amaral was, NO.
No they couldn't. Why was it closed in the first place.
Shame Amaral and his gang didn't want to cooperate with the McCann's. They were too hell bent on stitching Kate up.
Yet another episode of fantasy island.............................
-
Rebelo was the coordinator when the case was shelved, not Amaral.
Indeed, & as we have seen in the witness statements, Amaral was not alone in his thinking on the case.
The McCann team didn't cooperate, the case had to be shelved.
They could of proved their innocence & furthered the search to help find their daughter alive, they didn't because they couldn't.
-
They could have had the investigation re opened at any time,
All they had to do was cooperate with the Portuguese police,
If they had nothing to hide & they really thought she could be found alive, they would have done so.
Well thats the crux of it isnt it?? The moment they were made arguidos they ran away back home never to return to assist the police again. What exactly does that tell anyone who has never really heard anything about the case before? If they genuinely wanted to find their daughter they would have scoured the whole area creating as much publicity as they could as they went but no. Instead they run off to the pope in Rome, what were they hoping for exactly?? Was it a case of divine intervention, divine absolution or penance?
They didn't cooperate with the Portuguese then and they arent doing it now. They want SY to do it for them.
-
I can't beleive you have in some way been involved with child care.
The McCanns keep going because they what their daughter back.
Sorry, Neeley, I have been on the phone.
I think you misunderstand - or maybe I do. I thought what was being asked was why the McCanns keep "going for over 6 years if not to find their daughter" - ie why continue this if they had been involved in the disappearance of Madeleine themselves and there was no daughter to find. Obviously if they were not involved in the disappearance of Madeleine and want the hunt for their daughter to continue the question has answered itself.
-
Well thats the crux of it isnt it?? The moment they were made arguidos they ran away back home never to return to assist the police again. What exactly does that tell anyone who has never really heard anything about the case before? If they genuinely wanted to find their daughter they would have scoured the whole area creating as much publicity as they could as they went but no. Instead they run off to the pope in Rome, what were they hoping for exactly?? Was it a case of divine intervention, divine absolution or penance?
They didn't cooperate with the Portuguese then and they arent doing it now. They want SY to do it for them.
The PJ were well aware that they would be going home. Why didn't they do a reconstruction when they were in Portugal?
They DID scour the area, there was a huge search remember? No body was found.
It was the Pope who asked to see the McCann's not vise versa. The Pope showed an interest in the Madeleine McCann case and asked to see them. Should they have refused?
-
The PJ were well aware that they would be going home. Why didn't they do a reconstruction when they were in Portugal?
They DID scour the area, there was a huge search remember? No body was found.
It was the Pope who asked to see the McCann's not vise versa. The Pope showed an interest in the Madeleine McCann case and asked to see them. Should they have refused?
He could have flown to them 8(0(*
-
The PJ were well aware that they would be going home. Why didn't they do a reconstruction when they were in Portugal?
They DID scour the area, there was a huge search remember? No body was found.
It was the Pope who asked to see the McCann's not vise versa. The Pope showed an interest in the Madeleine McCann case and asked to see them. Should they have refused?
Yes, why didn't the McCann's & their friends do a reconstruction while they were still in Portugal?
It seems like an obvious thing to do, with all the worlds cameras there, the media could of helped, maybe jog the public's memory & appeal for witnesses,
They didn't do it because they knew it would expose the holes in their statements.
-
Yes, why didn't the McCann's & their friends do a reconstruction while they were still in Portugal?
It seems like an obvious thing to do, with all the worlds cameras there, the media could of helped, maybe jog the public's memory & appeal for witnesses,
They didn't do it because they knew it would expose the holes in their statements.
Ask Amaral, the group expected to do a recon soon after Madeleine had disappeared - when it might have helped, but the PJ decided not to hold one because it would disrupt the tourist trade. So no blame on the McCanns or their friends for that decision.
-
Ask Amaral, the group expected to do a recon soon after Madeleine had disappeared - when it might have helped, but the PJ decided not to hold one because it would disrupt the tourist trade. So no blame on the McCanns or their friends for that decision.
And when the rogatory letters were sent, requesting they return to portugal, what happened then?
-
Ask Amaral, the group expected to do a recon soon after Madeleine had disappeared - when it might have helped, but the PJ decided not to hold one because it would disrupt the tourist trade. So no blame on the McCanns or their friends for that decision.
Big flaw in your logic Benice. It's now six years on but Crimewatch will it says include some kind of reconstrction, as SY feels it may help.
That's six years on.
You guys ask what use would the proposed one have been one year on.
I don't see you now asking SY what use Crimewatch will be >@@(*&)
-
For the MCanns to have concealed (and possibly harmed) their daughter, then devoted the past six years of their lives to a highly taxing international media charade and financial fraud on a major scale, both of them would have to be seriously mentally ill. And there is just no evidence of that whatsoever.
-
They could have had the investigation re opened at any time,
All they had to do was cooperate with the Portuguese police,
If they had nothing to hide & they really thought she could be found alive, they would have done so.
Could you please provide a cite from the criminal process code that states that an investigation can be reopened at any time without any relevant new evidence to challenge the original decision?
-
Someone with something to hide wouldn't have kept this whole case going for over 6 years if not to find their daughter.
Seriously, they have pushed, petitioned and asked for help from many quarters. They have never let it fade away.
The petition was for a Review -the hope was a Re-opening of the investigation into Madeline's abduction.
Are these the actions of guilty people?
If it were me and I had gotten away with a serious crime, probably not immediately, but at the right time I would let it fade and leave the country. Not keep on about it for six years
And please don't insult the intelligence of people on this forum by the usual "they dun it for the money" posts as that is total nonsense.
Have to go out now Ill leave you with it. Cheerio.
....heading edited slightly....
Consider Ben the reports from Lisbon that indicate their concern about what their other children will read and perhaps watch in the future. Do you maybe see a motive now?
-
For the MCanns to have concealed (and possibly harmed) their daughter, then devoted the past six years of their lives to a highly taxing international media charade and financial fraud on a major scale, both of them would have to be seriously mentally ill. And there is just no evidence of that whatsoever.
Seriously mentally ill, no.
Devious, sly, cunning , willing to do anything to save their own skin? Possibly.
-
Could you please provide a cite from the criminal process code that states that an investigation can be reopened at any time without any relevant new evidence to challenge the original decision?
The case was shelved because of lack of evidence was it not,
That being the evidence Kate & Gerry were unwilling to share, if they had told the truth, the case would not have been shelved.
If they decided to tell the truth at a later date, that would be relevant evidence to challenge the original decision.
-
I agree totally with that. They didn't invent the media circus nor anticipated it. Once they pronounced the shutters and window forced and the child abducted from bed they were in a no-return process.
I disagree with that Anne
I think the media circus was more than just 'anticipated' ... I think it was invited ( within hours )
There is simply no other explanation for the press being on their doorstep before the McCanns had even set foot inside Portimao police station
What motivated that invitation is debatable ... but that the media were informed by the McCann camp very early on, is beyond question
-
I disagree with that Anne
I think the media circus was more than just 'anticipated' ... I think it was invited ( within hours )
There is simply no other explanation for the press being on their doorstep before the McCanns had even set foot inside Portimao police station
What motivated that invitation is debatable ... but that the media were informed by the McCann camp very early on, is beyond question
Amen
-
It was the Pope who asked to see the McCann's not vise versa. The Pope showed an interest in the Madeleine McCann case and asked to see them. Should they have refused?
First time I see this.
The Pope showed such interest in Madeleine McCann that he had her parents' appeal erased from the Vatican site as soon as they were made arguidos, though little Madeleine was still missing and in spite of Christian charity..
-
I agree totally with that. They didn't invent the media circus nor anticipated it. Once they pronounced the shutters and window forced and the child abducted from bed they were in a no-return process.
Where is it recorded that they said anything to police about forced/jemmied windows?
-
I agree totally with that. They didn't invent the media circus nor anticipated it. Once they pronounced the shutters and window forced and the child abducted from bed they were in a no-return process.
Where is it recorded that they said anything to police about forced/jemmied windows?
As I recall, it wasn't the police that were told but the press, I believe it was one of their relatives in the UK that stated it.
-
I agree totally with that. They didn't invent the media circus nor anticipated it. Once they pronounced the shutters and window forced and the child abducted from bed they were in a no-return process.
Where is it recorded that they said anything to police about forced/jemmied windows?
Who did they say it to then ?
... and if they said it to others ( family members and friends in the many phone calls they made that night ) ... why DIDN'T they say it to the police ?
-
I disagree with that Anne
I think the media circus was more than just 'anticipated' ... I think it was invited ( within hours )
There is simply no other explanation for the press being on their doorstep before the McCanns had even set foot inside Portimao police station
What motivated that invitation is debatable ... but that the media were informed by the McCann camp very early on, is beyond question
The McCann camp sure (though we know Mr McCann does things by proxy), but I'm prone to think it worked beyond any possible hope (thanks to the basic ingredients of any collective belief) and went to their heads.
-
Who did they say it to then ?
... and if they said it to others ( family members and friends in the many phone calls they made that night ) ... why DIDN'T they say it to the police ?
Who did they say it to then ?
So you agree they said nothing to police about forced or jemmied shutters windows?
Give yourself a pat on the back that, at last, you've got something right ...
-
Would keep this whole case going for over 6 years if not to find their daughter?
Seriously, they have pushed, petitioned and asked for help from many quarters. They have never let it fade away.
The petition was for a Review -the hope was a Re-opening of the investigation into Madeleines Abduction.
Are these the actions of guilty people?
If it were me and I had gotten away with a serious crime, probably not immediately, but at the right time I would let it fade and leave the country. Not keep on about it for six years
And please don't insult the intelligence of people on this forum by the usual "they dun it for the money" posts as that is total nonsense.
Have to go out now Ill leave you with it. Cheerio.
"Are these the actions of guilty people?»
YES.
They cold have maintained the investigation ongoing where and when it was supposed to be, in Portugal - from the Archivel Dispatch (last page) signed in Portimão, 21.07.08 by The Republic's Prosecutor (José de Magalhães e Menezes) and The Joint General Prosecutor (João Melchior Gomes)
«Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.» - as interested parties in the disappearance of the child, and not being arguidos anymore, they could have filed for the quality of assistants and required the investigation to keep open.
Why did they take all those years to blackmail the UK PM, in a sort of "marketing ploy", for a review?!!! I bet they never expected Mr. Cameron to respond to them and especially that SY would be actually working with PJ and abiding with the portuguese laws.
It doesn't matter how much the press (whose only aim is to sell the "poor suffering parents image") attempts to blunder this SY-PJ association, in the end we know they will get to the truth, if that is possible.
-
@ Luz: Why does any of that prove that the McCanns are guilty, or that those are the actions of guilty people. Let's take an example from here. Michael O'Brien does not want to co-operate with the police force that wrongly convicted him. He has very good reasons. They stitched him up. They investigated their stitch up and concluded that they were right all along. They were wrong. Nobody fights harder than O'Brien to find the killer. He even put up a reward to try to catch the killer. He says that he wants justice, but doesn't trust the police force that targeted him to put it right. Are those the actions of a guilty man?
I didn't say what their guilt is.
They are certainly guilty of boycotting their daughter's disappearance investigation.
By the way, you make an interesting point:
He even put up a reward to try to catch the killer. He says that he wants justice, but doesn't trust the police force that targeted him to put it right. Are those the actions of a guilty man?
Where did the McCann put any part of their belongings in order to find their daughter?! So far they (and their family) have profited from the money that goodhearted people have put forward to search for her. According to the Funds Accounts only an infinitesimal part of it was used in campaigns for Madeleine's search.
-
I didn't say what their guilt is.
They are certainly guilty of boycotting their daughter's disappearance investigation.
That's the problem, Because no one can be sure of the exact nature or extent of the crime, it is impossible to establish guilt.
-
Thankyou all for your input.
My analysis after a quick catch up...
Sherlock of course is the sensible one.
And as expected from the usual suspects old myths and accusations.
As for riding the Tiger? - Am I allowed to say Bollocks to that ?
Outcome for me is that no one has given me a logical or probable answer to my original question. >@@(*&)
-
Thankyou all for your input.
My analysis after a quick catch up...
Sherlock of course is the sensible one.
And as expected from the usual suspects old myths and accusations.
As for riding the Tiger? - Am I allowed to say Bollocks to that ?
Outcome for me is that no one has given me a logical or probable answer to my original question. >@@(*&)
I don't know about riding the tiger - I think a few posters on here are riding puff the magic dragon given some of the nonsense they come out with. Thinking that they know exactly how parents in the McCanns' position should act and interpreting every action as a sign of guilt being one of the most common examples.
-
I don't know about riding the tiger - I think a few posters on here are riding puff the magic dragon given some of the nonsense they come out with. Thinking that they know exactly how parents in the McCanns' position should act and interpreting every action as a sign of guilt being one of the most common examples.
Oddly enough a similar thought crossed my mind when I was reading the posts.
How the heck would any poster on here know how and in which way parents who had discovered their child stolen/abducted from her bed would react?
-
I didn't say what their guilt is.
They are certainly guilty of boycotting their daughter's disappearance investigation.
By the way, you make an interesting point:
Where did the McCann put any part of their belongings in order to find their daughter?! So far they (and their family) have profited from the money that goodhearted people have put forward to search for her. According to the Funds Accounts only an infinitesimal part of it was used in campaigns for Madeleine's search.
If you have any evidence that the McCann and their family have personally profited from the fund - maybe you should produce it.
Once again the exceedingly large 'Elephant in the Room' - i.e. the many hundreds of thousands of pounds put into the Fund which they could quite legitimately have put into their own private bank accounts is studiously ignored.
Very telling IMO.
-
Would keep this whole case going for over 6 years if not to find their daughter? The question is not would they keep i for six years. The question is why did they start it? They started it as a primary defense reaction - let's get here all the help we can get from our friends and overload these stupid portuguese with a media circus. Once they started there was no way back. They got caught in their own deceiving.
Seriously, they have pushed, petitioned and asked for help from many quarters. They have never let it fade away. All part of the tsunami they created. There was no way to back out without confessing the deceit.
The petition was for a Review -the hope was a Re-opening of the investigation into Madeleines Abduction.
Bullshit. They could have asked for the maintenance of the investigation open for 20 days after the publication of the General Attorney's Dispatch, and until now they still can apply for a re-opening as long as they accept, for instance to the the re-enactment of that night, with their friends, under the terms of the Procedure Penal Law.
Are these the actions of guilty people? I maintain, yes. Those were/are the actions of deceiving people that have been lying and taking advantage of people's generousity in order to maintain a Fund that only serves them and their enlarged family.
If it were me and I had gotten away with a serious crime, probably not immediately, but at the right time I would let it fade and leave the country. Not keep on about it for six years You probably lack the skills to maintain a "WIDER AGENDA", the one that less than a month after your child had been gone was planning, a sort of one year commemoration, a worldwide event with all the celebrities he could get...
And please don't insult the intelligence of people on this forum by the usual "they dun it for the money" posts as that is total nonsense.
It's you that try to insult others by not allowing them to have their own opinions.
Have to go out now Ill leave you with it. Cheerio. Have a nice lunch
-
If the McCanns feel that the Portuguese police have made up their minds about them, why would they trust them now? If you were in their shoes and felt that way about investigators - any investigators - would you trust them?
Where are those eventually real feelings grounded ? Have you any direct source, not hearsay, from Mr or Mrs McCann at the time of the facts (I discard "Madeleine") that suggests this making up of minds ?
Let me just remind you that the MP regularly claimed they were investigating all lines, even after the arguido measure.
The hated coordinator of the investigation was dismissed beginning of October, the investigation was for 9 months coordinated by someone else, and this coordinator as the dismissed one were under the strict control of the Public Prosecutor and the Judge of Instruction (concerning human rights).
Would you seriously advise anyone involved or concerned by a crime in Portugal to escape to their country-land in order that Justice might win ?
-
Luz, I have worked on miscarriages of justice for over 20 years and helped to not only overturn a notorious one, but put it right by finding the real killer. At times I was on my own doing it. This means that I have seen several investigations that have a self-serving agenda. A case hypothesis is developed and it over-rides evidence, common-sense and even the law.
In the major case I worked on there was a closed mind and in the end an appalling miscarriage of justice occurred. As soon as the Cardiff 3 (2 were acquitted) had their convictions, the police investigated themselves. They decided they had done nothing wrong. The Lord Chief Justice - the top judge in our country - had said a month earlier that he never wanted to hear interviewing like that in his court ever again.
The police demanded new evidence. I gave it to them with the support of the dead woman's mother and they made a complete pig's ear of it. We had to stop them using all the DNA up to prevent them making it unsolvable. I wrote and published a book about it which included how it could be solved. A year later it was reopened again and this time it was investigated properly and resulted in the case being solved correctly. It is the one example of an outrageously bad investigation being followed by a superb one.
Later another investigation followed which ended in justice being betrayed again. I don't trust the system to put right what it did wrong in that case. Does that make me guilty too? Is Michael O'Brien guilty of anything for not trusting the system as well. He believes (with cause) that the police are trying to stitch him up again. If the McCanns believed that the Portuguese investigators were out to achieve that why would they co-operate?
I understand what you are saying. I've worked for the justice system for many years, both for the prosecution and defense. I know it doesn't always work well and many times there are situations where innocents are wrongly mistreated. But let me tell you. In Portugal, most times it is the victims, the real victims (children, adolescents, women and now even some men) of abuse and neglect that are less protected.
The McCann had no reason to be fearful, they had a huge battery of support behind them. They were treated like innocents from the beginning until it became impossible not to examine them.
They screwed big time. They had disrespected every directive the police had given them, they were ostentatiously disrespectful whenever they were called to check the leads that kept coming, they went on with their media propaganda after the british and portuguese police asked them to calm down.
After Kate McCann confessed to Ricardo Paiva that she had dreams about Madeleine being dead, and they requested for the phony South African to come to Praia da Luz; after some Uk experts told the portuguese authorities that the parents had to be examined, what did you expect that should be done. Tell them: nice to meet you, now go home?
In fact they did, because the imbecile judge instead of putting them in pre-emptive imprisonment, gave them the minimum restriction order: to remain in their residence (which was Rothley), and they took it.
Now I ask, if you had a child missing, would you just escape like a rabbit from a fox? Or would you stay and try to help, not only to clear your position, but most of all, find your child?
__________
I hope you can make out what I wrote. Speaking in portuguese with people here and writing in english is too hard. Sorry for such a bad text.
-
Luz, I have worked on miscarriages of justice for over 20 years and helped to not only overturn a notorious one, but put it right by finding the real killer. At times I was on my own doing it. This means that I have seen several investigations that have a self-serving agenda. A case hypothesis is developed and it over-rides evidence, common-sense and even the law.
In the major case I worked on there was a closed mind and in the end an appalling miscarriage of justice occurred. As soon as the Cardiff 3 (2 were acquitted) had their convictions, the police investigated themselves. They decided they had done nothing wrong. The Lord Chief Justice - the top judge in our country - had said a month earlier that he never wanted to hear interviewing like that in his court ever again.
The police demanded new evidence. I gave it to them with the support of the dead woman's mother and they made a complete pig's ear of it. We had to stop them using all the DNA up to prevent them making it unsolvable. I wrote and published a book about it which included how it could be solved. A year later it was reopened again and this time it was investigated properly and resulted in the case being solved correctly. It is the one example of an outrageously bad investigation being followed by a superb one.
Later another investigation followed which ended in justice being betrayed again. I don't trust the system to put right what it did wrong in that case. Does that make me guilty too? Is Michael O'Brien guilty of anything for not trusting the system as well. He believes (with cause) that the police are trying to stitch him up again. If the McCanns believed that the Portuguese investigators were out to achieve that why would they co-operate?
Two big differences between the cases, Dhingra. The whole world was watching Portugal, and unfortunately few were looking at Cardiff as you know.
The other difference is obvious - it was their daughter who was missing. They ought to have put her before themselves?
-
Why not? It is not an isolated one - just an example to illustrate the point, which you have not responded to. Is there any reason for the McCanns to trust the Portuguese system to find out what happened to Madeleine?
@ Anne: the key word I used was If ...
Any investigation should look at any reasonable hypothesis and then test it. After testing it they should revieww it and progress should be evidence-based. I am no fan of what the McCanns did that night and before, but I'd be surprised if they didn't beat themselves up privately over their errors that night and more thoroughly than people on here do. They certainly made a lousy decision regarding the care of their children that night. Who is saying otherwise? Does any of that come close to proving that Madeleine died in that apartment that night.
I also think it telling that there has not been a single response to my post in another thread that could test the abduction-hypothesis. Like I said before, I need evidence to reach any conclusion on what happened to poor Madeleine. Without it I remain firmly on the fence.
Welcome to the Madeleine Case discussion, Dhingra. You have made some excellent posts.
-
By the looks, that's where they have spent it, or at least a part. The other part was probably on their many trips, as Kennedy and Branson seem to have left the boat.
In 2007 they were discussing a miserable 1500€ week vacation in a cheap resort, after the Fund was set they payed 2 months mortgages in their Rothley House, nowadays they go to 5 star Hotels, make fruitless plane travels just to appear in the journos outside a Court House... The Fund has become very handy, indeed.
None of this searching business comes cheap, you know.
-
By the looks, that's where they have spent it, or at least a part. The other part was probably on their many trips, as Kennedy and Branson seem to have left the boat.
In 2007 they were discussing a miserable 1500€ week vacation in a cheap resort, after the Fund was set they payed 2 months mortgages in their Rothley House, nowadays they go to 5 star Hotels, make fruitless plane travels just to appear in the journos outside a Court House... The Fund has become very handy, indeed.
Never mind Luz. At least they pay their mortgage, taxes, and haven't committed fraud against family.
Gerry doesn't beat Kate up, or threaten to kill her.
They wouldn't have to make fruitless plane travels just to appear in Court House, if the Court got their act together, and stopped wasting time, on stupid excuses! Do they ask you to pay for anything, NO, so keep your beak out 8((()*/
-
I understand you perfectly. Your English is infinitely better than my Portuguese ?{)(**
Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with the Portuguese police looking into the McCanns. In fact I would have a problem if they hadn't. I think there are many instances where the McCanns have not helped themselves. Should things have been done differently previously? Definitely, but the clock cannot be wound back. At least some of the questions posed here are ones only the McCanns can answer as they relate to their actions and thoughts.
Missing children is always difficult to investigate because family and friends have to be investigated. Like I said I have no problem with that, but what other leads were investigated and with what zeal. My method is to look at the mechanics of the crime (or event if preferred) and test hypotheses against it. What did a killer have to do if she died that night. What physical evidence is there to support that hypothesis? What evidence is there that she was abducted? What physical evidence is there to support that hypothesis? Then test both hypotheses and review them. You might at least get to the truth of what happened that way.
In answer to your question I would co-operate up to a point. I would want legal representation, but of my choice. I know the consequences of poor legal representation too well to take a chance. I operate a zero strikes policy. That means I give one chance of co-operation. If that is blown then forget it, you have to regain my trust and that will not be easy.
One other point, were the McCanns fluent in Portuguese? Was the quality of interpreting guaranteed to be up to standard. How could they have been imprisoned pre-emptively without being charged?
In answer to your question of what I'd do, I would co-operate, but with safeguards. I would make sure that I was properly represented in all interviews, which would have to be recorded. Effective safeguards prevent injustice on both sides. It stops miscarriages of justice and it prevents spurious accusations of police malpractice. I want a system that makes my work redundant.
In all the interviews with the police they were always represented by the best of the best lawyers. Those lawyers, that I think are no longer working for them, when questioned by the press, still defend them. They had UK Ambassadors and Councils all the time nosing inside the PJ and advising them not to expose the parents.
Never in the history of Portuguese-British relations had a crime been so covered up by the British authorities.
-
I understand you perfectly. Your English is infinitely better than my Portuguese ?{)(**
Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with the Portuguese police looking into the McCanns. In fact I would have a problem if they hadn't. I think there are many instances where the McCanns have not helped themselves. Should things have been done differently previously? Definitely, but the clock cannot be wound back. At least some of the questions posed here are ones only the McCanns can answer as they relate to their actions and thoughts.
Missing children is always difficult to investigate because family and friends have to be investigated. Like I said I have no problem with that, but what other leads were investigated and with what zeal. My method is to look at the mechanics of the crime (or event if preferred) and test hypotheses against it. What did a killer have to do if she died that night. What physical evidence is there to support that hypothesis? What evidence is there that she was abducted? What physical evidence is there to support that hypothesis? Then test both hypotheses and review them. You might at least get to the truth of what happened that way.
In answer to your question I would co-operate up to a point. I would want legal representation, but of my choice. I know the consequences of poor legal representation too well to take a chance. I operate a zero strikes policy. That means I give one chance of co-operation. If that is blown then forget it, you have to regain my trust and that will not be easy.
One other point, were the McCanns fluent in Portuguese? Was the quality of interpreting guaranteed to be up to standard. How could they have been imprisoned pre-emptively without being charged?
In answer to your question of what I'd do, I would co-operate, but with safeguards. I would make sure that I was properly represented in all interviews, which would have to be recorded. Effective safeguards prevent injustice on both sides. It stops miscarriages of justice and it prevents spurious accusations of police malpractice. I want a system that makes my work redundant.
one of the problems, as I uunderstand, is that the pj did not carry out a proper forensic analysis of the crime scene so the fact that they found no evidence of an abductor may be down to their own incompetence rather than no abductor. no forensic suits were worn, and instead of sending the whole of the sheets for analysis as they should have done they took samples..thus other forensics may have been lost
-
one of the problems, as I uunderstand, is that the pj did not carry out a proper forensic analysis of the crime scene so the fact that they found no evidence of an abductor may be down to their own incompetence rather than no abductor. no forensic suits were worn, and instead of sending the whole of the sheets for analysis as they should have done they took samples..thus other forensics may have been lost
As I recall, a number of people had been in and out of the apartment long before the police arrived, so the scene would have already been forensically compromised.
Additionally, it may not have been immediately appreciated that it should be a crime scene, as it originally would have been a case of a missing child, not an alleged abduction.
-
Never mind Luz. At least they pay their mortgage, taxes, and haven't committed fraud against family.
Gerry doesn't beat Kate up, or threaten to kill her.
They wouldn't have to make fruitless plane travels just to appear in Court House, if the Court got their act together, and stopped wasting time, on stupid excuses! Do they ask you to pay for anything, NO, so keep your beak out 8((()*/
Neither Kate nor Gerry McCann have any convictions either.... unlike Amaral.
-
I understand you perfectly. Your English is infinitely better than my Portuguese ?{)(**
Just to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with the Portuguese police looking into the McCanns. In fact I would have a problem if they hadn't. I think there are many instances where the McCanns have not helped themselves. Should things have been done differently previously? Definitely, but the clock cannot be wound back. At least some of the questions posed here are ones only the McCanns can answer as they relate to their actions and thoughts.
Missing children is always difficult to investigate because family and friends have to be investigated. Like I said I have no problem with that, but what other leads were investigated and with what zeal. My method is to look at the mechanics of the crime (or event if preferred) and test hypotheses against it. What did a killer have to do if she died that night. What physical evidence is there to support that hypothesis? What evidence is there that she was abducted? What physical evidence is there to support that hypothesis? Then test both hypotheses and review them. You might at least get to the truth of what happened that way.
In answer to your question I would co-operate up to a point. I would want legal representation, but of my choice. I know the consequences of poor legal representation too well to take a chance. I operate a zero strikes policy. That means I give one chance of co-operation. If that is blown then forget it, you have to regain my trust and that will not be easy.
One other point, were the McCanns fluent in Portuguese? Was the quality of interpreting guaranteed to be up to standard. How could they have been imprisoned pre-emptively without being charged?
In answer to your question of what I'd do, I would co-operate, but with safeguards. I would make sure that I was properly represented in all interviews, which would have to be recorded. Effective safeguards prevent injustice on both sides. It stops miscarriages of justice and it prevents spurious accusations of police malpractice. I want a system that makes my work redundant.
Lest we forget, the McCanns had a lawyer with them that was fluent, I would assume, in both Portuguese and English. Surely if the transcripts of the interviews did not match what his clients had said their lawyer would have complained ?
-
Once again, what has Amaral got to do with the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann?!!!
what a a stupid thing to post are you for real 8-)(--)
he has a lot to do with the aftermath,acussing her parents of keeping her body in a fridge and no concrete proof or do you know something we don't >@@(*&)
-
Would keep this whole case going for over 6 years if not to find their daughter?
Seriously, they have pushed, petitioned and asked for help from many quarters. They have never let it fade away.
The petition was for a Review -the hope was a Re-opening of the investigation into Madeleines Abduction.
Are these the actions of guilty people?
If it were me and I had gotten away with a serious crime, probably not immediately, but at the right time I would let it fade and leave the country. Not keep on about it for six years
And please don't insult the intelligence of people on this forum by the usual "they dun it for the money" posts as that is total nonsense.
Have to go out now Ill leave you with it. Cheerio.
When the McCann's first started the abduction story I don't think they expected anyone to disbelieve them. When the internet became awash with questions and speculations they continued their original line with added emphasis and explanations to counter the speculation. They delivered documentaries and voluntarily gave themselves to chat shows and interviews to explain their side and ultimately sued anyone who questioned their version of events. All in all, and in my humble opinion, they have ridden the wave they started. This has been a fight to save their reputations, not a fight for Madeleine.
Fading away became an impossible option once they started that wave.
Only my personal thoughts and nothing to back them.
-
When the McCann's first started the abduction story I don't think they expected anyone to disbelieve them. When the internet became awash with questions and speculations they continued their original line with added emphasis and explanations to counter the speculation. They delivered documentaries and voluntarily gave themselves to chat shows and interviews to explain their side and ultimately sued anyone who questioned their version of events. All in all, and in my humble opinion, they have ridden the wave they started. This has been a fight to save their reputations, not a fight for Madeleine.
Fading away became an impossible option once they started that wave.
Only my personal thoughts and nothing to back them.
Good call.
-
When the McCann's first started the abduction story I don't think they expected anyone to disbelieve them. When the internet became awash with questions and speculations they continued their original line with added emphasis and explanations to counter the speculation. They delivered documentaries and voluntarily gave themselves to chat shows and interviews to explain their side and ultimately sued anyone who questioned their version of events. All in all, and in my humble opinion, they have ridden the wave they started. This has been a fight to save their reputations, not a fight for Madeleine.
Fading away became an impossible option once they started that wave.
Only my personal thoughts and nothing to back them.
Tiger by its tail...
-
When the McCann's first started the abduction story I don't think they expected anyone to disbelieve them. When the internet became awash with questions and speculations they continued their original line with added emphasis and explanations to counter the speculation. They delivered documentaries and voluntarily gave themselves to chat shows and interviews to explain their side and ultimately sued anyone who questioned their version of events. All in all, and in my humble opinion, they have ridden the wave they started. This has been a fight to save their reputations, not a fight for Madeleine.
Fading away became an impossible option once they started that wave.
Only my personal thoughts and nothing to back them.
For over six years? Nope I don't buy it. They could have let it fade away easily after the case was archived.
-
I don't think they are the type of person who can.
-
I don't think they are the type of person who can.
What ALL of them? McCanns, family, friends all and sundry involved with the family from day one?
And not one has slipped up?
-
What ALL of them? McCanns, family, friends all and sundry involved with the family from day one?
And not one has slipped up?
In all probability, if the McCanns had chosen to fade into obscurity, we would never have heard another peep out of family or friends. As it is the remainder of the Tapas group have maintained a very low profile over the years.
-
In all probability, if the McCanns had chosen to fade into obscurity, we would never have heard another peep out of family or friends. As it is the remainder of the Tapas group have maintained a very low profile over the years.
Weird- Do you honestly think that a group of normal people, no past history for bad behaviours. Not daft, medically trained - suddenly went into crime masters mode after an accident. In a strange place yet they managed to be cunning enough to cover up an accident, fool the GNR/PJ/MW Staff, TV and Press and manage to hide a body in the space of a short time?
Seriously? 8-)(--)
It would have been easier to admit to an accident happening and making themselves look innocent about it don't you think?
-
Weird- Do you honestly think that a group of normal people, no past history for bad behaviours. Not daft, medically trained - suddenly went into crime masters mode after an accident. In a strange place yet they managed to be cunning enough to cover up an accident, fool the GNR/PJ/MW Staff, TV and Press and manage to hide a body in the space of a short time?
Seriously? 8-)(--)
It would have been easier to admit to an accident happening and making themselves look innocent about it don't you think?
Indeed it would, but I don't think they are the type who are willing to admit mistakes - it might be due to their medical training, or it may just be a personality trait.
-
Weird- Do you honestly think that a group of normal people, no past history for bad behaviours. Not daft, medically trained - suddenly went into crime masters mode after an accident. In a strange place yet they managed to be cunning enough to cover up an accident, fool the GNR/PJ/MW Staff, TV and Press and manage to hide a body in the space of a short time?
Seriously? 8-)(--)
It would have been easier to admit to an accident happening and making themselves look innocent about it don't you think?
Weird- Do you honestly think that a group of normal people, no past history for bad behaviours. Not daft, medically trained - suddenly went into crime masters mode after an accident. In a strange place yet they managed to be cunning enough to cover up an accident, fool the GNR/PJ/MW Staff, TV and Press and manage to hide a body in the space of a short time?
It's not impossible.
-
For over six years? Nope I don't buy it. They could have let it fade away easily after the case was archived.
I'm not asking you to 'buy' it LagosBen, it was just my personal thoughts.
-
Weird- Do you honestly think that a group of normal people, no past history for bad behaviours. Not daft, medically trained - suddenly went into crime masters mode after an accident. In a strange place yet they managed to be cunning enough to cover up an accident, fool the GNR/PJ/MW Staff, TV and Press and manage to hide a body in the space of a short time?
It's not impossible.
Present us with a sensible theory, then, Wonderfulspam
-
Weird- Do you honestly think that a group of normal people, no past history for bad behaviours. Not daft, medically trained - suddenly went into crime masters mode after an accident. In a strange place yet they managed to be cunning enough to cover up an accident, fool the GNR/PJ/MW Staff, TV and Press and manage to hide a body in the space of a short time?
Seriously? 8-)(--)
It would have been easier to admit to an accident happening and making themselves look innocent about it don't you think?
Easy to say when you're not in that kind of situation. Those who are in their panic may see things differently.
They may think - we know what happened but who is going to believe us? So panic takes over.
-
Would a guilty person really have bothered to keep the case alive for over 6 years?
-
Would a guilty person really have bothered to keep the case alive for over 6 years?
Why not - If you were desperate to be cleared of any wrongdoing and thought you were very, very clever and could pull off a deception.
-
Yes John, the whole T9 have been covering each others lies since day one.
They had to keep up the act.
Why do you think Rebbekah Brooks got Cameron to reopen the case?
It wasn't just to do with the book deal.
The UK media has had the case files since they became public.
They all know where the files lead & it's not to elite child abducting paedophiles
What was that comment by a policeman on CW (?) about peoples loyalties changing over six years?
-
What was that comment by a policeman on CW (?) about peoples loyalties changing over six years?
Someone will crack, the pressure is on them, the media is turning on them.
-
So the UK media has been given complete access to all files, actions sheets, messages logged the works during the inquiry in an unresolved inquiry. Are we seriously expected to believe that such contempt has been shown for normal police procedures? If that had been the case the UK media, which by the way includes numerous media would still be reading through it all now. And if they have not got everything you cannot know whether there is something that leads in a different direction to where you would like it to go.
No the UK media had copies of the original investigation file when the case was shelved & the documents were made public.
They obviously would not have access to the Met Review & current investigation.
-
They could have had the investigation re opened at any time,
All they had to do was cooperate with the Portuguese police,
If they had nothing to hide & they really thought she could be found alive, they would have done so.
Strange that as the Portuguese police have always said they won't re open the case until new evidence has been found. Show me where they have said they will open it if the McCann's ask them to.
-
Strange that as the Portuguese police have always said they won't re open the case until new evidence has been found. Show me where they have said they will open it if the McCann's ask them to.
"New evidence"
The McCanns & their group witheld their evidence, if they chose to present it then the case could have been reopened.
-
The file almost certainly would not include actions and messages. If it did it would fill a room. At best it would be an extensive summary and if that is the case it will reflect the beliefs of investigators as to what is relevant.
Sorry, yes your right not ALL case files but an extensive summary with relevant details.
Either way they have had that information on the Smiths sighting since the files were made public & have never drawn attention to it, until now that is.
-
Sorry, yes your right not ALL case files but an extensive summary with relevant details.
Either way they have had that information on the Smiths sighting since the files were made public & have never drawn attention to it, until now that is.
That's because a proper job wasn't done by the original investigation team. The Smith sighting has to be eliminated that's why the Met are highlighting it. Because its information that they have been given so it has to be eliminated. Nothing more than that. I don't understand why people think there is anything more to it.
-
The file almost certainly would not include actions and messages. If it did it would fill a room. At best it would be an extensive summary and if that is the case it will reflect the beliefs of investigators as to what is relevant.
AFAIK, the police files which were made public are not made up of an extensive summary and they do include all "actions and messages". All of the reports, documents, photocopies, photographs, everything, not just a summary. And all of this is available to the British press on DVDs if they make a request at Portimão courthouse. Have you looked at the files or have I not understood you correctly?
-
That's because a proper job wasn't done by the original investigation team. The Smith sighting has to be eliminated that's why the Met are highlighting it. Because its information that they have been given so it has to be eliminated. Nothing more than that. I don't understand why people think there is anything more to it.
Now that the Tanner sighting has been 'debunked' (as described by crimewatch), the Smiths sighting is the last known possible sighting of Madeleine, 2 witnesses to this sighting believe with between 60 to 80% accuracy, that the man carrying Madeleine was Gerry McCann.
That is a pretty strong lead for the Met to go on.
There is already evidence in their statements & the sticker book timeline, that some of the T9 have not been entirely honest.
Do you think the Met will not have noticed?
Do you think Gerry can have been entirely ruled out as the man the Smiths saw?
-
AFAIK, the police files which were made public are not made up of an extensive summary and they do include all "actions and messages". All of the reports, documents, photocopies, photographs, everything, not just a summary. And all of this is available to the British press on DVDs if they make a request at Portimão courthouse. Have you looked at the files or have I not understood you correctly?
Thankyou, I remember Simon McCoy on BBC News some years back announcing that they had received the Dvd & files (or words to that effect).
They could not have failed to see the full info on the Smiths sighting.
-
Now that the Tanner sighting has been 'debunked' (as described by crimewatch), the Smiths sighting is the last known possible sighting of Madeleine, 2 witnesses to this sighting believe with between 60 to 80% accuracy, that the man carrying Madeleine was Gerry McCann.
That is a pretty strong lead for the Met to go on.
There is already evidence in their statements & the sticker book timeline, that some of the T9 have not been entirely honest.
Do you think the Met will not have noticed?
Do you think Gerry can have been entirely ruled out as the man the Smiths saw?
Yes, he's been ruled out. The Met have told us the parents aren't suspects and witnesses place him in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.
As far as the Smiths are concerned, they don't appear particularly reliable. First they can't give a description, then one of them thinks it might be a gerry based not on his face but on the way he carried a child, then they produce a couple of efits that aren't that consistent with each other. I think that like Jane, they saw a man carrying a child, but like Jane's sighting they can say no more than that and it may well be an innocent holiday maker. But it still needs to be eliminated which is what the Met are doing and what the PJ should have done.
-
Yes that's the spirit, start bashing the Smiths credibility, they are the next new target of the McCann supporters, threatening as they are with their malicious lies intent on destroying the fairytale abduction story the McCann team have promoted.
I bet Amaral told them to say it, that nasty man.
They are obviously not great witnesses. That's not 'bashing them'. I don't doubt their integrity and their intentions, but unfortunately they are not a huge amount of investigative use. Their sighting needs to be eliminated though and I'm glad the Met are trying to find out who they saw because I believe they saw someone.
-
They are obviously not great witnesses. That's not 'bashing them'. I don't doubt their integrity and their intentions, but unfortunately they are not a huge amount of investigative use. Their sighting needs to be eliminated though and I'm glad the Met are trying to find out who they saw because I believe they saw someone.
I think the Met believe they saw someone also.
And I think your a little to eager to believe Redwood is being entirely honest.
The media are itching to give the full account of the Smiths statements, Sky News all but blurted it out last night & the Daily Star quoted the Smiths account all be it via Gonçarlo Amaral.
The media are altering their posture.
Who do you think is leaking stories to the press?
The Met said they were not going to comment publicy at the start of the investigation, they have not stopped talking since.
-
Would a guilty person really have bothered to keep the case alive for over 6 years?
It depends on the guilt. Running away doesn't reduce it. The point of no return is swiftly reached, and then you have no choice (or rather think so).
-
Yes, he's been ruled out. The Met have told us the parents aren't suspects and witnesses place him in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.
As far as the Smiths are concerned, they don't appear particularly reliable. First they can't give a description, then one of them thinks it might be a gerry based not on his face but on the way he carried a child, then they produce a couple of efits that aren't that consistent with each other. I think that like Jane, they saw a man carrying a child, but like Jane's sighting they can say no more than that and it may well be an innocent holiday maker. But it still needs to be eliminated which is what the Met are doing and what the PJ should have done.
So their descriptions in their statements of the man are....what exactly?
-
Strange that as the Portuguese police have always said they won't re open the case until new evidence has been found. Show me where they have said they will open it if the McCann's ask them to.
No problem! From the archiving report (note the word assistant)
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.
-
It depends on the guilt. Running away doesn't reduce it. The point of no return is swiftly reached, and then you have no choice (or rather think so).
Indeed Anne I think they commited themselves to something they cannot drop,
They are going to see it through to the bitter end & there won't be a pretty outcome.
-
No problem! From the archiving report (note the word assistant)
Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.
Thankyou Albertini,
I knew it was there somewhere but I couldn't be bothered to look.
-
Indeed Anne I think they commited themselves to something they cannot drop,
They are going to see it through to the bitter end & there won't be a pretty outcome.
Why do you suppose they made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister to get the Met to look at the case?
-
Yes, he's been ruled out. The Met have told us the parents aren't suspects and witnesses place him in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.
As far as the Smiths are concerned, they don't appear particularly reliable. First they can't give a description, then one of them thinks it might be a gerry based not on his face but on the way he carried a child, then they produce a couple of efits that aren't that consistent with each other. I think that like Jane, they saw a man carrying a child, but like Jane's sighting they can say no more than that and it may well be an innocent holiday maker. But it still needs to be eliminated which is what the Met are doing and what the PJ should have done.
Wasn't there a long and convoluted argument a couple of days ago about how JT could be 80% sure that cooperman and Bundleman were the same guy, even though she didn't see his face, cause the face was only 20% of the overall description?
Benice:Red - The 80% was his body which she agreed was a good resemblance. The 20% which she could not comment on was his face, because she never saw it. Therefore the picture bore an 80% resemblance to the man she saw.
Benice: Well from an amateurs point of view - I think if I was shown a picture of a man and could only comment on it from the neck down (apart from the hair) - I would calculate the picture was 80% correct. The fact that the face is the most important part wouldn't enter my head
...edited to include Benice's posts re body part % allocation.
-
It is hard to believe that has been done. First of all thee would be too much to do and more importantly it would any prosecution impossible. If everything is available to the public domain any interrogation of suspects later would be hopelessly compromised. Any confession could be challenged on the basis that it does not contain any detail only the perpetrator would know. Any policeman allowing that to happen or lawyer for that matter should be drummed out of her/his job. It would be a disgrace. I have never heard of any inquiry where this was allowed to happen and quite frankly it should not be allowed unless it is so obviously unsolvable with prosecution such as Jack the Ripper.
The only positive is that is makes disclosure a lot easier!
-
Indeed Anne I think they commited themselves to something they cannot drop,
They are going to see it through to the bitter end & there won't be a pretty outcome.
I hope not.
-
Wasn't there a long and convoluted argument a couple of days ago about how JT could be 80% sure that cooperman and Bundleman were the same guy, even though she didn't see his face, cause the face was only 20% of the overall description?
If there was it was not a discussion I was involved in.
-
Wasn't there a long and convoluted argument a couple of days ago about how JT could be 80% sure that cooperman and Bundleman were the same guy, even though she didn't see his face, cause the face was only 20% of the overall description?
Yes, that was Benice's argument to which some opposed that the most expressive part of the human being is the face.
-
Wasn't there a long and convoluted argument a couple of days ago about how JT could be 80% sure that cooperman and Bundleman were the same guy, even though she didn't see his face, cause the face was only 20% of the overall description?
yes I dont remember the thread, but the poiht in discussion was that Jane Tanner never saw the mans face but when shown a photofit of george harrison creepy cooperman complete with handlebar moustache said she was, according to gerry mccanns/mitchells whoever it was powerpoint presentation to the press conference, she said it bore an 80 per cent resemblance to the man she saw.....and some posters came on and said that 80 per cent must have had to do with his height way of walking etc, anything but his face..they forgot the cooperwomans efit showed a man whose hair was like being dragged throug a hedge backwards and tannsrs sketch was of a sleek and coiffured bob
-
Why do you suppose they made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister to get the Met to look at the case?
The appeal to the PM seems to mean they are innocent, isn't it ? Hence...
-
The appeal to the PM seems to mean they are innocent, isn't it ? Hence...
I see. So doing something that makes them look innocent is evidence of guilt. And presumably if they hadn't made such an appeal and instead let the story die down, that would be evidence they were trying to get away with it and also evidence of guilt.
Remember, a witch will have one place on their body where they don't bleed, so keep on stabbing!
-
Why do you suppose they made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister to get the Met to look at the case?
They wanted to clear their names, maybe they thought if they managed to dupe the PJ, they could somehow do the same with the Met. I dont think they thought it through very well.
Sun Newspaper, The Murdoch Empire had copies of the files when they were made public.
They have seen the murky events & actions of the T9.
Rebekah Brooks 'persuaded' her old pal Cameron to open the review into the nasty saga at de Luz, in return for favourable reporting.
They made a miserly few hundred thousand on serializing Kates (ill thought out) book, and they are safe in the knowledge that when the Met investigation reaches its finale, they will have played a part in getting the truth out & in doing so will dodge some of the inevitable & immense public backlash they will receive.
The Sun supported Gerry & Kate,
Gerry & Kate squealed on the press at Leveson, It may almost be payback time.
-
I think if someone was guilty or innocent they would carry on for years I do think there are lots to wonder about the mccanns .the only thing I do not get is if they were involved how did they manage to get so many people to help cover up .
-
I think if someone was guilty or innocent they would carry on for years I do think there are lots to wonder about the mccanns .the only thing I do not get is if they were involved how did they manage to get so many people to help cover up .
Perhaps no one covered up.....
-
I see. So doing something that makes them look innocent is evidence of guilt. And presumably if they hadn't made such an appeal and instead let the story die down, that would be evidence they were trying to get away with it and also evidence of guilt.
Remember, a witch will have one place on their body where they don't bleed, so keep on stabbing!
First I said nothing allowing you to conclude that "doing something that makes them look etc." and secondly your witch suggestion is unacceptable, Victoria.
-
Perhaps no one covered up.....
I quite agree with that. There are things that you do alone or don't do.
-
I quite agree with that. There are things that you do alone or don't do.
Well that's the pact of silence myth debunked
-
Perhaps no one covered up.....
They must of got help if they were involved ,to hide and remove a body while your on holiday ? They couldnt have done alone
-
They must of got help if they were involved ,to hide and remove a body while your on holiday ? They couldnt have done alone
You dont know that at all or anything else regarding what they knew and did in that holiday and whi they knew and others there before it...as Anne said aboce, two people or one even can hide something they know if self and family preservation is the goal
-
8((()*/ Welcome OpenMinded. Great post, and I agree with your points. It's certainly wise to open minded about what people think are facts in this case.
-
That's a well thought through first post OpenMinded ( I always think 'fence-sitters' thoughts are the most interesting )
Thankyou, and welcome to the forum
-
Yes, he's been ruled out. The Met have told us the parents aren't suspects and witnesses place him in the restaurant at the time of the sighting.
The Met thought de Menezes was a terrorist. They make mistakes. I'm not saying they have done here, but it's possible. Need I mention the Dando case too? Can we, for the sake of discussion (otherwise if we took your beliefs at face value we'd have nothing whatsoever to talk about and could all go home) assume that there are some of us that don't have the same faith in Redwood's statement about the parents & friends?
Also if you would be so good as to join in with the relevant thread about Gerry McCann and the 10 O'Clock whereabouts, that would be a good addition to the discussion I think. 8((()*/
-
I also think it is probable that the McCanns and tapas 7 haven't been 100% honest.
Welcome Openminded !
May I ask why you are putting the TP9 in the same not 100% honest "bag" ? Are they tied by solidarity in your... open mind ?
-
As I said, there are no facts as such to back up my belief that the TP7 (9) are not 100% honest. It's just a feeling I have due to the discussion of timeline, JTs changing story and so on.
I guess we are all in a position where we don't need to give facts to back up our assumptions. I guess if I was asked in court if they were being 100% honest then I couldn't say that they weren't. That's a luxury we have though on forums (obviously potential libel taken into consideration)
That doubt is expressed in the only book ever published on the case in the UK, which doesn't make it a fact obviously, but it does remind us we're not alone.
-
As I said, there are no facts as such to back up my belief that the TP7 (9) are not 100% honest. It's just a feeling I have due to the discussion of timeline, JTs changing story and so on.
I guess we are all in a position where we don't need to give facts to back up our assumptions. I guess if I was asked in court if they were being 100% honest then I couldn't say that they weren't. That's a luxury we have though on forums (obviously potential libel taken into consideration)
Absolutely
This is not a court of law ... it is a forum ... and we are not bound by the 'presumed innocent' principle
We can discuss, and theorise , and hypothesize ( within reason ), and express our opinions ( whether they are factually based, or intuitive )
That is what makes this forum exceptional and unique ... you won't find another place, that I am aware of, where free-thinking debate on this case is welcome
You've stumbled into a haven for the 'OpenMinded' 8((()*/
-
You know, I don't think I have ever been on a forum where so many arguments are strawman, ad hominem or argumentum ad populum (and many other fallacies) but I've taken a great interest in this case over the years and have lurked here for a while. So I thought, despite my misgivings about some of the arguing on here I wanted to put my view across. Anyway I hope that some of you from both sides can perhaps agree with some of my points, if not then maybe my time here will be short.
So to the question in this topic. Would a guilty person have kept the case alive for 6 years? To be honest, there is a really simple answer to this question. Who knows... There's only one person who knows what GM is thinking and there's only one person who knows what KM is thinking. Arguing over this question serves no purpose since none of us know, weather innocent of crime or not (more on that shortly), what drives these two. We can all make supposition that they are doing it to cover their tracks or doing it to find their daughter but this requires us to firstly assume innocence or guilt. And this in turn automatically puts us all pro vs anti and the arguments continue, strawman, ad hominem... and so on.
Personally, I have an open mind on this case, as my user name suggests, however I sway from one side to the other depending upon the "facts" put to the public. I guess you could say I sit on the fence a fair bit. I think I should just explain why I've put "facts" in quotation marks. Well it is a fact that the Smiths said they saw a man carry a child but it is not a fact that it actually happened. The difference to me is key to this case. Anyone can claim or counter claim but with out corroboration, it is still just a claim. The claim is factual as in the claim was made, the actual details of that claim may not be. And for this reason I take all claims with a pinch of salt.
So it is certainly possible that GM and KM could keep a lie going for 6 years but it is also possible that they wouldn't be able to (or had no need to!). As I said, I just don't think arguing about this adds anything to the case other than to set pro against anti. What I do think is 100% fact though is that Madeline was let down by the adults who should have been there for her, by her parents, by the Tapas 7 and by the police, both Portuguese and British. It is also a fact that Madeline is missing but it is not yet a fact that she is dead or a fact that she is alive. It is not a fact that her parents were involved and it is not a fact that they weren't. It is not a fact that she was a victim of infanticide, murder, abduction or tragic accident. In my mind these questions are still open.
It also seems to be a fact to me that none of the evidence is water tight and the recent "breakthrough" from SY does nothing to change this. If anything it just raises more questions and makes me doubt the evidence given by all concerned even more. Personally, I believe the balance of probabilities points towards Madeline being dead and I also think it is probable that the McCanns and tapas 7 haven't been 100% honest. But I can't back this up with facts as its just a feeling I have given all the evidence as I see it.
Anyway, I've rambled a bit and probably gone way off topic so i'll leave it there for now.
I agree with you entirely. I know that sometimes (many times) I get carried away when I read unfounded accusations in order to take a position, but I concur that we, as mere spectators, can only discuss the news or no-news and elaborate intellectually, formulating mere hypothesis. But none of us know what in fact happened.
-
If they did it and knew she would never be found then yes they would keep it open knowingly by keeping it going it would fool the police into thinking would they keep pushing for action? Thus it makes them look innocent.
-
If they did it and knew she would never be found then yes they would keep it open knowingly by keeping it going it would fool the police into thinking would they keep pushing for action? Thus it makes them look innocent.
Good post and welcome to the forum and it's not like they've got a choice. If they're guilty they don't want anyone else to know it. Somebody always seems more concerned about what her mother thinks before herself. I wonder if that person hated the nickname MaddY? Because SeanY seems fine >@@(*&)
-
...always...
may be a bit of a generallsation when the examples you can quote can be counted on the fingers of one finger?