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: Alfred R Jones on February 22, 2015, 11:39:11 AM
-
The subject of obsession was brought up on another thread and I thought it would be interesting to discuss why people are so obsessed by this case. What, for example, drives people to sign up to a Facebook group called Madeleine: Unite For Justice which has as its banner a picture of a Knight on bended knee leaning on a large sword, next to this "A Solemn Oath"
"I swear to discover the truth about the unexplained disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I will see through the lies & deceit, the cover up and watch as the Guilty are made to face the Laws of the Land. My allegiance is to Madeleine. My age is timeless and tireless and is solely given to this Duty"
(Misplaced capital letters copied verbatim from the header)
Now, what drives this level of obsession? What makes them declare that their whole being is given in service to a missing child they never even knew? Is this normal, healthy behaviour?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/459770540741264/?ref=ts&fref=ts
111
-
The subject of obsession was brought up on another thread and I thought it would be interesting to discuss why people are so obsessed by this case. What, for example, drives people to sign up to a Facebook group called Madeleine: Unite For Justice which has as its banner a picture of a Knight on bended knee leaning on a large sword, next to this "A Solemn Oath"
"I swear to discover the truth about the unexplained disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I will see through the lies & deceit, the cover up and watch as the Guilty are made to face the Laws of the Land. My allegiance is to Madeleine. My age is timeless and tireless and is solely given to this Duty"
(Misplaced capital letters copied verbatim from the header)
Now, what drives this level of obsession? What makes them declare that their whole being is given in service to a missing child they never even knew? Is this normal, healthy behaviour?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/459770540741264/?ref=ts&fref=ts
Some would call it obsessive while others would prefer to refer to it as a search for the truth. What strikes me about the Madeleine case is the absence of evidence which one would expect to encounter in an abduction case, the involvement of the English police and the UK Government and the alternate thesis put forward by the former Portuguese head of the investigation.
All of these things have brought mystery and suspicion to the case.
-
Top of the list of reasons: the uniqueness of the case Alfred.
But pretty near the top is the same reason why the case was such a phenomenon in May 2007: why did so many people become so emotionally involved then?
-
The subject of obsession was brought up on another thread and I thought it would be interesting to discuss why people are so obsessed by this case. What, for example, drives people to sign up to a Facebook group called Madeleine: Unite For Justice which has as its banner a picture of a Knight on bended knee leaning on a large sword, next to this "A Solemn Oath"
"I swear to discover the truth about the unexplained disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I will see through the lies & deceit, the cover up and watch as the Guilty are made to face the Laws of the Land. My allegiance is to Madeleine. My age is timeless and tireless and is solely given to this Duty"
(Misplaced capital letters copied verbatim from the header)
Now, what drives this level of obsession? What makes them declare that their whole being is given in service to a missing child they never even knew? Is this normal, healthy behaviour?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/459770540741264/?ref=ts&fref=ts
I think if you are looking for a one word reply, that word would be suspicion. Suspicion that all was not as it seemed, suspicion of a simulated abduction, suspicion of a cover up and suspicion that the UK authorities were in some way involved in what followed and still, almost eight years on, continues to follow.
The Ben Needham case should in theory attract the same obsession so in determining an answer to your op, one must consider the differences in the two cases.
-
I think if you are looking for a one word reply, that word would be suspicion. Suspicion that all was not as it seemed, suspicion of a simulated abduction, suspicion of a cover up and suspicion that the UK authorities were in some way involved in what followed and still, almost eight years on, continues to follow.
The Ben Needham case should in theory attract the same obsession so in determining an answer to your op, one must consider the differences in the two cases.
The point I was going to make.
Why not the same for Kerry Needham?
Why don't people have the same suspicions with her?
Well, nobody saw Kerry carrying Ben away & she didn't smell like death, I don't think she changed her witness statements & she seems honest.
There's that.
-
I became involved in June 2007 because I was shocked and appalled at the vitriol being hurled at The McCanns from Britain and Portugal.
It only got worse after that.
-
The subject of obsession was brought up on another thread and I thought it would be interesting to discuss why people are so obsessed by this case. What, for example, drives people to sign up to a Facebook group called Madeleine: Unite For Justice which has as its banner a picture of a Knight on bended knee leaning on a large sword, next to this "A Solemn Oath"
"I swear to discover the truth about the unexplained disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I will see through the lies & deceit, the cover up and watch as the Guilty are made to face the Laws of the Land. My allegiance is to Madeleine. My age is timeless and tireless and is solely given to this Duty"
(Misplaced capital letters copied verbatim from the header)
Now, what drives this level of obsession? What makes them declare that their whole being is given in service to a missing child they never even knew? Is this normal, healthy behaviour?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/459770540741264/?ref=ts&fref=ts
No! whichever side of the coin.
There are however two human traits which may in part offer an explanation; a desire to belong coupled with a desire to set ones self apart from the herd and be noticed. Of course if one is pragmatic one must also accept we do rather like to form gangs then chuck brickbats at each other so any reason for that may be good enough. Some "reasons" just sound more noble than others. I doubt it is much more than a vehicle and excuse for baser instincts.
That is just my opinion of course based on observation extending well beyond the case under consideration here.
-
Some would call it obsessive while others would prefer to refer to it as a search for the truth. What strikes me about the Madeleine case is the absence of evidence which one would expect to encounter in an abduction case, the involvement of the English police and the UK Government and the alternate thesis put forward by the former Portuguese head of the investigation.
All of these things have brought mystery and suspicion to the case.
Search for the truth would be a good reason, if that is what drives people on, but I fear that it has gone beyond that now and has become a battle.
In the Ben Needham case no evidence was found .
It was not in the media eye, on a daily basis for years.
I doubt the Social media sites now operating were even there…but not sure.
Nobody wrote a book accusing the parents of involvement.
His mother was liked and trusted by most.
(You can add to this as you wish)
There is much less interest in those who have been found innocent of a crime, where there is plenty of evidence to suggest their guilt. I will not name names for obvious reasons, but I am sure you will all know of a few.
Why is there no obsession of the degree shown to this case, in any other cases, considering there is no incriminating evidence against the parents?
I am still trying to work out in my own mind, what may have happened to Maddie and it would be nice to discuss the possibilities in a civilized manner. However those who have already made their minds up, as to what they believe happened to her, give me little chance of discussing it in an adult fashion.
Whatever way you look at it, the parents and friends are innocent until proven guilty of any wrong doing.
-
I think if you are looking for a one word reply, that word would be suspicion. Suspicion that all was not as it seemed, suspicion of a simulated abduction, suspicion of a cover up and suspicion that the UK authorities were in some way involved in what followed and still, almost eight years on, continues to follow.
The Ben Needham case should in theory attract the same obsession so in determining an answer to your op, one must consider the differences in the two cases.
Suspicion might perhaps explain the intense interest, certainly in the beginning - though, I and many others never seriously suspected the parents but were just as interested as everyone else in what happened to the little girl. But does your one-word answer really explain the quasi-religious sentiments expressed in some quarters (and yes, I do mean on both sides of the debate). I mean, would your interest in the case ever lead you to swear an oath of allegiance to a missing / dead child? That's just strange, and symptomatic of something a bit more obsessional than mere interest isn't it?
-
No! whichever side of the coin.
There are however two human traits which may in part offer an explanation; a desire to belong coupled with a desire to set ones self apart from the herd and be noticed. Of course if one is pragmatic one must also accept we do rather like to form gangs then chuck brickbats at each other so any reason for that may be good enough. Some "reasons" just sound more noble than others. I doubt it is much more than a vehicle and excuse for baser instincts.
That is just my opinion of course based on observation extending well beyond the case under consideration here.
A good summation in my view, thank you Alice. 8((()*/
-
Suspicion might perhaps explain the intense interest, certainly in the beginning - though, I and many others never seriously suspected the parents but were just as interested as everyone else in what happened to the little girl. But does your one-word answer really explain the quasi-religious sentiments expressed in some quarters (and yes, I do mean on both sides of the debate). I mean, would your interest in the case ever lead you to swear an oath of allegiance to a missing / dead child? That's just strange, and symptomatic of something a bit more obsessional than mere interest isn't it?
Who are these 'many others' exactly ?
As to the mccanns , they undeniably have a quasi-religious following, and clearly visible in some of their supporters deluded meanderings
-
Who are these 'many others' exactly ?
As to the mccanns , they undeniably have a quasi-religious following, and clearly visible in some of their supporters deluded meanderings
Do you want names Stephen?
As for your second point, I acknowledged that in my post above.
-
Do you want names Stephen?
As for your second point, I acknowledged that in my post above.
No I don't.
You made a broad statement Alfred, which is essentially meaningless.
Second point acknowledged.
-
No I don't.
You made a broad statement Alfred, which is essentially meaningless.
Second point acknowledged.
Not it's not meaningless Stephen. There are many people interested in this case who don't think the parents are guilty. Of these there are some who are doubtless obsessed by the case, to the point that there is some weird cult-like quasi-religious devotion thing going on, much as there is with the group of nearly 2000 FB "sceptics" I highlighted in the OP.
-
A word immediately springing to mind is paranoia.
Associated with the belief that the McCann's were 'protected' by Government agencies.
If they were so 'protected' ... why was Madeleine allowed to be taken in the first place.
If they were so 'protected' ... why wasn't Madeleine returned tout suite, or her fate discovered?
-
Not it's not meaningless Stephen. There are many people interested in this case who don't think the parents are guilty. Of these there are some who are doubtless obsessed by the case, to the point that there is some weird cult-like quasi-religious devotion thing going on, much as there is with the group of nearly 2000 FB "sceptics" I highlighted in the OP.
By that note there are also many people who think the McCann's are guilty of negligence, I for one.
There are many also who go further.
There are also far more who don't give a monkeys, or are pissed off with the whole circus surrounding the McCann's.
-
By that note there are also many people who think the McCann's are guilty of negligence, I for one.
There are many also who go further.
There are also far more who don't give a monkeys, or are pissed off with the whole circus surrounding the McCann's.
Yes I know that Stephen. But on this thread we are discussing those that are interested in the case and what drives their interest and turns it into an obsession. Have you any views on this subject Stephen?
-
Yes I know that Stephen. But on this thread we are discussing those that are interested in the case and what drives their interest and turns it into an obsession. Have you any views on this subject Stephen?
I do.
However, something tells me after recent experience they would be deleted.
They are of course on Amazon, on various topics.
-
Not it's not meaningless Stephen. There are many people interested in this case who don't think the parents are guilty. Of these there are some who are doubtless obsessed by the case, to the point that there is some weird cult-like quasi-religious devotion thing going on, much as there is with the group of nearly 2000 FB "sceptics" I highlighted in the OP.
I had the greatest sympathy for them in the beginning until I read through much of the material associated with the case. I was dumbfounded at what I found so I can well understand why so many people just don't believe them. Had the McCanns and their pals cooperated fully with investigators we wouldn't be here today discussing this very issue.
-
I had the greatest sympathy for them in the beginning until I read through much of the material associated with the case. I was dumbfounded at what I found so I can well understand why so many people just don't believe them. Had the McCanns and their pals cooperated fully with investigators we wouldn't be here today discussing this very issue.
This thread is not about why we disbelieve the parents Angelo, it is about why some people are so obsessed (almost to the point of religious devotion) with the case. Any views?
-
I had the greatest sympathy for them in the beginning until I read through much of the material associated with the case. I was dumbfounded at what I found so I can well understand why so many people just don't believe them. Had the McCanns and their pals cooperated fully with investigators we wouldn't be here today discussing this very issue.
I think we would. The obsession started almost immediately. The Internet has just taken over from The Village Pump.
-
"My age is timeless and tireless and solely given to this Duty" (to discover the truth about Madeleine McCann and expose the Guilty).
What does this really mean actually? Do any of us here feel this way too?
-
This thread is not about why we disbelieve the parents Angelo, it is about why some people are so obsessed (almost to the point of religious devotion) with the case. Any views?
That should have it's own thread. I can think of several reasons.
-
"My age is timeless and tireless and solely given to this Duty" (to discover the truth about Madeleine McCann and expose the Guilty).
What does this really mean actually? Do any of us here feel this way too?
No, I most certainly don’t feel that way.
It is just a very interesting and somewhat, intriguing case, of which I would very much like to find the answer unravelled as to where Maddie disappeared too.
We are all just guessing at possibilities and I would never dream of laying the guilt at anyone’s feet, until such proof has been presented.
-
I think if you are looking for a one word reply, that word would be suspicion. Suspicion that all was not as it seemed, suspicion of a simulated abduction, suspicion of a cover up and suspicion that the UK authorities were in some way involved in what followed and still, almost eight years on, continues to follow.
The Ben Needham case should in theory attract the same obsession so in determining an answer to your op, one must consider the differences in the two cases.
Perhaps that should have been worded as.
The Ben Needham case could have in theory attracted the same obsession, had there been Internet, mobile phones, and instant news transmission 16 years earlier so in determining an answer, one might then be able to consider the differences in the two cases.
Have you read Kerry's book, John?. If not here is a starter
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/29/missing-child-ben-needham (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/29/missing-child-ben-needham)
-
"My age is timeless and tireless and solely given to this Duty" (to discover the truth about Madeleine McCann and expose the Guilty).
What does this really mean actually? Do any of us here feel this way too?
Isn't the white knight thing taken from some supporter blog ? Perhaps the image and sentiment were a cheeky send up of that ?
-
Perhaps different people have different reasons for being interested.
Despite living in Luz, I would have no interest in the case were it not for the PJ files, Amaral's book, and Kate's book.
-
Isn't the white knight thing taken from some supporter blog ? Perhaps the image and sentiment were a cheeky send up of that ?
Is it? If so, that's not how it comes across to the casual observer, it looks rather obsessional and odd to me.
-
Perhaps that should have been worded as.
The Ben Needham case could have in theory attracted the same obsession, had there been Internet, mobile phones, and instant news transmission 16 years earlier so in determining an answer, one might then be able to consider the differences in the two cases.
Have you read Kerry's book, John?. If not here is a starter
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/29/missing-child-ben-needham (http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/29/missing-child-ben-needham)
'In January 2008 Kerry was contacted by a television director, who was making a documentary about the McCanns. As Kerry remembers it, she was asked if she would like to meet Kate McCann; she said yes, as long as there were no cameras, no reporters, that they could meet as one bereft mother with another. But the meeting never took place. When I spoke to Clarence Mitchell in November 2008, he said that the film director hadn't asked Kerry if she wanted to meet Kate McCann, but whether she would appear in the documentary as the mother of a lost child.'
I know which one I believe.
-
Is it? If so, that's not how it comes across to the casual observer, it looks rather obsessional and odd to me.
What the supporter use of the sentiment or the sceptic's ?
-
'In January 2008 Kerry was contacted by a television director, who was making a documentary about the McCanns. As Kerry remembers it, she was asked if she would like to meet Kate McCann; she said yes, as long as there were no cameras, no reporters, that they could meet as one bereft mother with another. But the meeting never took place. When I spoke to Clarence Mitchell in November 2008, he said that the film director hadn't asked Kerry if she wanted to meet Kate McCann, but whether she would appear in the documentary as the mother of a lost child.'
I know which one I believe.
When I spoke to Clarence Mitchell in November 2008, he said that the film director hadn't asked Kerry if she wanted to meet Kate McCann, but whether she would appear in the documentary as the mother of a lost child. "Kate finds the idea of meeting a parent in that position quite daunting," he told me then.
"[Kerry] has been living with it for 18 years and the idea of facing it as long and stoically as Kerry has is a bit daunting. It's not that she doesn't want to meet her, she's sure she's a lovely person and maybe one day she will feel like it. But she doesn't want to face a lifetime without finding Madeleine."
So when a letter arrived out of the blue on 24 January from Kate McCann, Kerry was amazed.
"I thought it was sweet of her. I didn't think she'd ever get in contact with me. I was really moved, it's a really heartfelt letter. She'd wanted to be in touch with me, but had been scared of having to admit that Madeleine's disappearance might end up like Ben's. Nobody wants to think a child could be missing for years and years. If the boot had been on the other foot I wouldn't have wanted to get in touch with somebody whose child had been missing for all these years because it would give you no hope. You'd think, is that me in 18 years?"
-
What the supporter use of the sentiment or the sceptic's ?
I have only seen the Sceptic FB page banner, which strikes me as obsessional and odd. If it's supposed to be a joke then it's in pretty poor taste.
-
Suspicion might perhaps explain the intense interest, certainly in the beginning - though, I and many others never seriously suspected the parents but were just as interested as everyone else in what happened to the little girl. But does your one-word answer really explain the quasi-religious sentiments expressed in some quarters (and yes, I do mean on both sides of the debate). I mean, would your interest in the case ever lead you to swear an oath of allegiance to a missing / dead child? That's just strange, and symptomatic of something a bit more obsessional than mere interest isn't it?
Without doubt Alfred. Some people take it too far and get far too involved to the extent it takes over their entire lives. It is one thing to be genuinely interested and get involved in debates but it is quite another to take things too far as Mr Bennett and others found to their cost.
-
"My age is timeless and tireless and solely given to this Duty" (to discover the truth about Madeleine McCann and expose the Guilty).
What does this really mean actually? Do any of us here feel this way too?
Red bit:
It sounds like some wag bootlegged part of Bob Dylan's "With God on Our Side", mixed it up with The Knights Templars ideas then started to take themselves too seriously.
Blue bit:
I don't but can't speak for others.
-
I have only seen the Sceptic FB page banner, which strikes me as obsessional and odd. If it's supposed to be a joke then it's in pretty poor taste.
And that makes the supporter blog from whence it came.........?
-
A word immediately springing to mind is paranoia.
Associated with the belief that the McCann's were 'protected' by Government agencies.
If they were so 'protected' ... why was Madeleine allowed to be taken in the first place.
If they were so 'protected' ... why wasn't Madeleine returned tout suite, or her fate discovered?
Do you mean the same sort of affliction demonstrated by those who spend an inordinate amount of time picking over Dr Amarals life and career?
I guess paranoia knows no bounds.
"Don't phone us we know who you are and we will phone you" @)(++(*
-
And that makes the supporter blog from whence it came.........?
I haven't seen that page so can't comment. Anyway, how do you know that the sentiment expressed by the Unite For Justice FB page isn't entirely sincere in its oaths and vows?
-
When I spoke to Clarence Mitchell in November 2008, he said that the film director hadn't asked Kerry if she wanted to meet Kate McCann, but whether she would appear in the documentary as the mother of a lost child. "Kate finds the idea of meeting a parent in that position quite daunting," he told me then.
"[Kerry] has been living with it for 18 years and the idea of facing it as long and stoically as Kerry has is a bit daunting. It's not that she doesn't want to meet her, she's sure she's a lovely person and maybe one day she will feel like it. But she doesn't want to face a lifetime without finding Madeleine."
So when a letter arrived out of the blue on 24 January from Kate McCann, Kerry was amazed.
"I thought it was sweet of her. I didn't think she'd ever get in contact with me. I was really moved, it's a really heartfelt letter. She'd wanted to be in touch with me, but had been scared of having to admit that Madeleine's disappearance might end up like Ben's. Nobody wants to think a child could be missing for years and years. If the boot had been on the other foot I wouldn't have wanted to get in touch with somebody whose child had been missing for all these years because it would give you no hope. You'd think, is that me in 18 years?"
Makes a big difference when quoted correctly, doesn't it, Anna.
And they did meet at Downing Street for the reception to mark Inernational Missing Children's Day.
-
I truly believe that the abductor theory is a fallacy and when in the fullness of time the truth is known it will turn out to be a very simple event.
-
I haven't seen that page so can't comment. Anyway, how do you know that the sentiment expressed by the Unite For Justice FB page isn't entirely sincere in its oaths and vows?
Of course it could be but is it really worth losing sleep over ?
-
I truly believe that the abductor theory is a fallacy and when in the fullness of time the truth is known it will turn out to be a very simple event.
I truly believe that the McCanns do not know what happened to Maddie
-
Do you mean the same sort of affliction demonstrated by those who spend an inordinate amount of time picking over Dr Amarals life and career?
I guess paranoia knows no bounds.
"Don't phone us we know who you are and we will phone you" @)(++(*
Nicely put Alice.
That was extremely visible last night.
-
Nicely put Alice.
That was extremely visible last night.
The rampant obsessional and paranoaic attacks even seemed characteristic of members of the McCann family. 8(0(*
You mean Freddy and The Frog? (that'll get whooshed I bet!) *&*%£
I firmly believe that the polar extremes of this debate are populated by the same sort of people.
-
Makes a big difference when quoted correctly, doesn't it, Anna.
And they did meet at Downing Street for the reception to mark Inernational Missing Children's Day.
A big difference to what exactly?
-
You mean Freddy and The Frog? (that'll get whooshed I bet!) *&*%£
I firmly believe that the polar extremes of this debate are populated by the same sort of people.
I would say there is quite a significant difference between the supporters and detractors
-
I would say there is quite a significant difference between the supporters and detractors
It is like pressing "lamp test" on a control panel ?>)()< @)(++(*
-
It is like pressing "lamp test" on a control panel ?>)()< @)(++(*
again predictable...you seem obsessed with trying to score points rather than addressing posts
-
Of course it could be but is it really worth losing sleep over ?
I don't recall saying that I had lost any sleep over the matter at all. I am simply puzzled by the obsessional devotion to a young child by those who have no connection to her - be assured I will sleep soundly tonight (unless this storm gets much worse!)
-
You mean Freddy and The Frog? (that'll get whooshed I bet!) *&*%£
I firmly believe that the polar extremes of this debate are populated by the same sort of people.
To whom are you referring?
-
When I spoke to Clarence Mitchell in November 2008, he said that the film director hadn't asked Kerry if she wanted to meet Kate McCann, but whether she would appear in the documentary as the mother of a lost child. "Kate finds the idea of meeting a parent in that position quite daunting," he told me then.
"[Kerry] has been living with it for 18 years and the idea of facing it as long and stoically as Kerry has is a bit daunting. It's not that she doesn't want to meet her, she's sure she's a lovely person and maybe one day she will feel like it. But she doesn't want to face a lifetime without finding Madeleine."
So when a letter arrived out of the blue on 24 January from Kate McCann, Kerry was amazed.
"I thought it was sweet of her. I didn't think she'd ever get in contact with me. I was really moved, it's a really heartfelt letter. She'd wanted to be in touch with me, but had been scared of having to admit that Madeleine's disappearance might end up like Ben's. Nobody wants to think a child could be missing for years and years. If the boot had been on the other foot I wouldn't have wanted to get in touch with somebody whose child had been missing for all these years because it would give you no hope. You'd think, is that me in 18 years?"
Sorry Anna, is that all a Clarence quote?
-
again predictable...you seem obsessed with trying to score points rather than addressing posts
If you say so.
You do not have to respond to my (or anybody's come to that) posts with feeble one liners.
What was there to address in a post that was merely a gainsay?
-
If you say so.
You do not have to respond to my (or anybody's come to that) posts with feeble one liners.
What was there to address in a post that was merely a gainsay?
one liners because I cannot be bothered to compose long posts....if there's nothing to address why answer the post
-
The subject of obsession was brought up on another thread and I thought it would be interesting to discuss why people are so obsessed by this case. What, for example, drives people to sign up to a Facebook group called Madeleine: Unite For Justice which has as its banner a picture of a Knight on bended knee leaning on a large sword, next to this "A Solemn Oath"
"I swear to discover the truth about the unexplained disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I will see through the lies & deceit, the cover up and watch as the Guilty are made to face the Laws of the Land. My allegiance is to Madeleine. My age is timeless and tireless and is solely given to this Duty"
(Misplaced capital letters copied verbatim from the header)
Now, what drives this level of obsession? What makes them declare that their whole being is given in service to a missing child they never even knew? Is this normal, healthy behaviour?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/459770540741264/?ref=ts&fref=ts (https://www.facebook.com/groups/459770540741264/?ref=ts&fref=ts)
52
Is that Oaf Oath a joke. I wonder who's behind that little nugget? &%+((£
-
Is that Oath a joke. I wonder who's behind that little nugget? &%+((£
According to Faithlilly it may be, though she's not sure. If it's a joke it's a pretty sick one, don't you think?
-
According to Faithlilly it may be, though she's not sure. If it's a joke it's a pretty sick one, don't you think?
Sick as the others set up. Don't need many guesses for who's helping run that one &%&£(+
-
I doubt if any other parents of a missing child have been subjected to the full frontal attack that Madeleine McCann's parents had to endure within hours of her disappearance.
On the 4th May journalists were being briefed that abduction was doubted and the parents were being untruthful; I find that absolutely incredible.
On May 5th an article “This Is A Very Badly Told Story,” was published in the Diario de Noticias under the byline of Jose Manuel Oliveira who stated that the story had been leaked to him by the PJ before 5pm on May 4th.
These leaks were undoubtedly the start of a controversy which has lasted for nearly eight years and I think rank as the first of many unprecedented events surrounding the Madeleine McCann case; including the many obsessives who have attached themselves to the bandwagon which for some has been a particularly profitable enterprise.
-
Forget it, Jake. It's Facebook...
(... I'll get me coat)
-
Forget it, Jake. It's Facebook...
(... I'll get me coat)
Yeah, it's only Facebook so not important is it? Yet for some it so very clearly is, hence the need for 1700+ people to work together obsessively for justice in private, like some secret army, with only it's Pledge of Allegiance on display. I wonder what gains they have made in their fight for justice since their inception?
-
I doubt if any other parents of a missing child have been subjected to the full frontal attack that Madeleine McCann's parents had to endure within hours of her disappearance.
On the 4th May journalists were being briefed that abduction was doubted and the parents were being untruthful; I find that absolutely incredible.
On May 5th an article “This Is A Very Badly Told Story,” was published in the Diario de Noticias under the byline of Jose Manuel Oliveira who stated that the story had been leaked to him by the PJ before 5pm on May 4th.
These leaks were undoubtedly the start of a controversy which has lasted for nearly eight years and I think rank as the first of many unprecedented events surrounding the Madeleine McCann case; including the many obsessives who have attached themselves to the bandwagon which for some has been a particularly profitable enterprise.
Didn't take them long to leak that did it? The McCanns weren't taken to Portimao till Mid morning on the 4th.
Mind you Amaral was probably in a rush that day, for his arguido court appearance.
-
Yeah, it's only Facebook so not important is it? Yet for some it so very clearly is, hence the need for 1700+ people to work together obsessively for justice in private, like some secret army, with only it's Pledge of Allegiance on display. I wonder what gains they have made in their fight for justice since their inception?
Join up and have a look at what goes on if you're wondering?
-
Yeah, it's only Facebook so not important is it? Yet for some it so very clearly is, hence the need for 1700+ people to work together obsessively for justice in private, like some secret army, with only it's Pledge of Allegiance on display. I wonder what gains they have made in their fight for justice since their inception?
Is your objection to secret societies (armies) in general, secret societies associated with this case or just this specific secret society?
-
Is your objection to secret societies (armies) in general, secret societies associated with this case or just this specific secret society?
I have no objection to secret societies in general (though depending on what the nature of the secret society is about - obviously some are likely to be somewhat unsavoury), this one however caught my eye owing to the fact that it has pledged an oath of allegiance to a missing / dead child and gives the impression of doing Important Works in order to fulfil its pledge to Expose The Guilty*. I wonder what successes it has achieved over the years?
*That should read "watch the Guilty face the Laws of the Land".
-
Join up and have a look at what goes on if you're wondering?
I'm not interested in making pledges or oaths, and if any mingling of bloods is involved I might faint.
-
I'm not interested in making pledges or oaths, and if any mingling of bloods is involved I might faint.
Ah go on 8)-))) You might be missing something really interesting.
(... you could tell us all about it then)
-
Sorry Anna, is that all a Clarence quote?
No problem, Slarti, Its as told by the author.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/mar/29/missing-child-ben-needham
-
Didn't take them long to leak that did it? The McCanns weren't taken to Portimao till Mid morning on the 4th.
Mind you Amaral was probably in a rush that day, for his arguido court appearance.
Madeleine was less than twenty four hours missing and all the big guns were already being pointed in the direction of her parents and their friends.
The notion that her parents were eventually made arguidos only because of the dogs' 'findings' is knocked into a cocked hat by the headline of the 7th May in the Diario de Noticias “Police clues points to Madeleine’s death,” with an inside page headline “Port authority already looking for Madeleine’s body.”
Once more 'police sources' were claimed.
Other newspapers were already running with 'discrepancies' in what the witnesses were saying.
The press assault on Madeleine McCann's parents was as unrelenting as it was vicious and who can forget the others joining in from the sidelines such as de Costa.
One has to ask why was this being done, one might say immediately Madeleine went missing, to these parents of a missing child? ... why the propaganda assault on them using every means to hand? ... and the final insult being to insinuate they were "uncooperative".
-
Ah go on 8)-))) You might be missing something really interesting.
(... you could tell us all about it then)
Don't worry there's bound to be an undercover agent or two whose infilrated already and feeding back to McI5 8(0(*
-
Don't worry there's bound to be an undercover agent or two whose infilrated already and feeding back to McI5 8(0(*
I'd be disappointed if that wasn't the case 8)--))
-
I have no objection to secret societies in general (though depending on what the nature of the secret society is about - obviously some are likely to be somewhat unsavoury), this one however caught my eye owing to the fact that it has pledged an oath of allegiance to a missing / dead child and gives the impression of doing Important Works in order to fulfil its pledge to Expose The Guilty*. I wonder what successes it has achieved over the years?
*That should read "watch the Guilty face the Laws of the Land".
The emboldened bit is extremely abnormal. The ensuing is fairly normal of people who have an over inflated sense of their own importance. I would imagine it has had no success but reports it would have been successful but for circumstances beyond it's control.
I don't believe secret societies have a place in modern society.
-
There can't be many people more obsessed by the case than Stephen Birch, given the amount of time, effort, risk & personal money he has spent.
Is he another misguided fool or will his efforts lead to the culmination of the investigation?
-
There can't be many people more obsessed by the case than Stephen Birch, given the amount of time, effort, risk & personal money he has spent.
Is he another misguided fool or will his efforts lead to the culmination of the investigation?
or are his efforts merely a smokescreen intended to divert attention just like the Metedo conmen?
-
There can't be many people more obsessed by the case than Stephen Birch, given the amount of time, effort, risk & personal money he has spent.
Is he another misguided fool or will his efforts lead to the culmination of the investigation?
Birch is a rare bird: one of the few people that most people on both sides of the McCann debate seem to agree about...
-
or are his efforts merely a smokescreen intended to divert attention just like the Metedo conmen?
Only if you believe someone else is responsible for paying this particular piper.
I find much of his research quite interesting, even though my own conclusions differ somewhat to his.
-
Only if you believe someone else is responsible for paying this particular piper.
I find much of his research quite interesting, even though my own conclusions differ somewhat to his.
He might have done some now (or he has perhaps at least read a particular blog), but when he first appeared it was quite obvious to members of the largest forum discussing the case that he was avoiding answering questions. I haven't changed my mind about the fella.
-
It seems to me there are a myriad of reasons why people become 'obsessed'. IMO as time has gone by - some people now use the case to bolster their own egos - and some have latched on to it simply because they get enjoyment from the misfortune of others. They have no real genuine interest in Madeleine at all IMO.
There are some people who do have genuine doubts and are willing to discuss them. However, it is the obsessional behaviour of those who spend all their time slagging off the McCanns, insulting their 'supporters' and trying to stifle any debate which does not include slagging off the McCanns which I find so bizarre. They have little interest in discussing the case. It's almost as if the McCanns have slighted them personally in some way - and they are never going to forgive or forget it. I just don't get that.
My personal interest in the McCanns is minimal. It's the appalling behaviour of some members of the public towards an innocent family and a missing little girl which I object to and which keeps me posting. I would feel the same no matter who the victims were.
-
It seems to me there are a myriad of reasons why people become 'obsessed'. IMO as time has gone by - some people now use the case to bolster their own egos - and some have latched on to it simply because they get enjoyment from the misfortune of others. They have no real genuine interest in Madeleine at all IMO.
There are some people who do have genuine doubts and are willing to discuss them. However, it is the obsessional behaviour of those who spend all their time slagging off the McCanns, insulting their 'supporters' and trying to stifle any debate which does not include slagging off the McCanns which I find so bizarre. They have little interest in discussing the case. It's almost as if the McCanns have slighted them personally in some way - and they are never going to forgive or forget it. I just don't get that.
My personal interest in the McCanns is minimal. It's the appalling behaviour of some members of the public towards an innocent family and a missing little girl which I object to and which keeps me posting. I would feel the same no matter who the victims were.
As a point of fact, you do not know who is responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.
FACT.
No matter what bluster emerges from certain parties that remains the case.
The obsessive nature of many mccann supporters is also VERY EVIDENT.
It is interesting to note, that the reference I gave last night to such a direct example has been surgically removed.
However, it still remains visible on the source and elsewhere, and remains a pertinent reminder of the mindset of many mccann supporters, who try to claim the high ground, when in reality all that is revealed is unpleasant and nasty individuals.
-
As a point of fact, you do not know who is responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine.
FACT.
No matter what bluster emerges from certain parties that remains the case.
The obsessive nature of many mccann supporters is also VERY EVIDENT.
It is interesting to note, that the reference I gave last night to such a direct example has been surgically removed.
However, it still remains visible on the source and elsewhere, and remains a pertinent reminder of the mindset of many mccann supporters, who try to claim the high ground, when in reality all that is revealed is unpleasant and nasty individuals.
They endorse the murder of little girls through their support of the Ciprianos.
That's the kind of people they are.
-
and here's one about a prisoner who tried to frame the police
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2957716/Punched-man-blames-officers-camera-shows-self-assault.html
-
Perhaps as the realisation began to dawn on them that the PJ had given up on Madeleine in the very early stages of the investigation into her disappearance and suspected them of involvement in her death ... the Drs McCann were forced to become pro-active in their campaign to ensure that people would continue to look for a living child.
Those who were buying into the lurid press headlines courtesy of 'a source close to the investigation' now had an excuse to excoriate this apparent extraordinary behaviour. I don't think they looked beyond that to the extraordinary behaviour of the investigation. Thus another myth was born and nurtured.
-
[quote removed]
stephen is right without the mcanns lack of parenting nobody would be here the mcann supporters dont have any empathy for maddie
-
[quote removed]
Quite, WS.
I have noticed that those who post seven days a week are very critical of those who also post seven days a week; wonder why that should be?
-
Quite, WS.
I have noticed that those who post seven days a week are very critical of those who also post seven days a week; wonder why that should be?
Because none of us particuarly like each other very much.
It could be that.
-
I think this could actually be an informative thread if it was allowed to be; unfortunately repetition of mantras which permeate every thread on the forum add nothing to the reasons the posters feel so impelled to do so.
The only conclusion I can reach is that they cannot support their assertions with any form of reasoned debate.
So is the obsession not with Madeleine McCann at all? ... but just an excuse to exercise a far deeper obsession?
-
Because none of us particuarly like each other very much.
It could be that.
I think it is just sheer hypocrisy ... plain and simple.
LOL ... that'll be the day when I "dislike" someone I have never met and do not know!! Life is far far too short for that nonsense.
-
I think it is just sheer hypocrisy ... plain and simple.
LOL ... that'll be the day when I "dislike" someone I have never met and do not know!! Life is far far too short for that nonsense.
I tend to take a disliking to those I don't trust.
I don't believe the McCanns abduction tale and it's impossible to trust anyone that does.
-
I tend to take a disliking to those I don't trust.
I don't believe the McCanns abduction tale and it's impossible to trust anyone that does.
Where does trust come into respecting the viewpoints of another? None of us are in possession of the full available facts - one unseen statement could change every posters perception. Only a true obsessive would dislike a person who didn't agree with their beliefs.
-
I think this could actually be an informative thread if it was allowed to be; unfortunately repetition of mantras which permeate every thread on the forum add nothing to the reasons the posters feel so impelled to do so.
The only conclusion I can reach is that they cannot support their assertions with any form of reasoned debate.
So is the obsession not with Madeleine McCann at all? ... but just an excuse to exercise a far deeper obsession?
As long as you accept that on both sides...
-
I tend to take a disliking to those I don't trust.
I don't believe the McCanns abduction tale and it's impossible to trust anyone that does.
Do you have a valid reason of your own for that which doesn't owe anything to the leaks emanating from 'a source close to the investigation' printed first in the Portuguese press and picked up and copied verbatim by a very lazy British press?
-
I think this could actually be an informative thread if it was allowed to be; unfortunately repetition of mantras which permeate every thread on the forum add nothing to the reasons the posters feel so impelled to do so.
The only conclusion I can reach is that they cannot support their assertions with any form of reasoned debate.
So is the obsession not with Madeleine McCann at all? ... but just an excuse to exercise a far deeper obsession?
Got it in one; there are no flies on you are there?
Bump my post #6 on this very thread ?>)()<
-
Do you have a valid reason of your own for that which doesn't owe anything to the leaks emanating from 'a source close to the investigation' printed first in the Portuguese press and picked up and copied verbatim by a very lazy British press?
The same sort of feeling as when first seeing Tracie Andrews on the telly?
-
As long as you accept that on both sides...
You have the floor ... I and I am sure others will listen ... but I must say the lines for debate seem somewhat stilted when assertions are open to challenge and further discussion as on this forum ... unlike forums where anything seems to be the order of the day, the more ludicrous the better.
-
Do you have a valid reason of your own for that which doesn't owe anything to the leaks emanating from 'a source close to the investigation' printed first in the Portuguese press and picked up and copied verbatim by a very lazy British press?
Course, I've been brainwashed by all the myths & lies circulated by the PJ who were trying to frame these innocent parents of an abducted child........zzzzzzzz
Nope, I've merely read the McCanns witness statement(s), watched them alter the version in various media interviews, contemplated the possibility of the gusty curtains which didn't blow the first time around, the key that Gerry forgot & the pyjama changing abductor who opens the noisy shutter & window & makes off on foot, & none of it makes any sense.
-
so why do you stay no one forces you to be here/post here/read us
Are you saying ... "Here's your hat ... what's the hurry"? LOL
A response on the thread subject might have been more appropriate. Why is it that no-one seems to want to discuss a real or perceived obsession with Madeleine McCann's case?
One can only surmise that there might be a recognition that the indefensible indeed cannot be defended.
-
Course, I've been brainwashed by all the myths & lies circulated by the PJ who were trying to frame these innocent parents of an abducted child........zzzzzzzz
Nope, I've merely read the McCanns witness statement(s), watched them alter the version in various media interviews, contemplated the possibility of the gusty curtains which didn't blow the first time around, the key that Gerry forgot & the pyjama changing abductor who opens the noisy shutter & window & makes off on foot, & none of it makes any sense.
Yeah but you are forgetting something along the lines of "it is possible for "that" to have happened therefore it did". Which seems to be the only logic that is applied. You and me mate should go into business and sell 'em a few bridges 8(>((
-
Tell me jp, do you ever use cliches ?
Ex parte?
-
Tell me jp, do you ever use cliches ?
1A phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought:
Never. ?{)(**
-
Same old cliches from you, and they are getting supremely boring.
You called me obsessive.
I merely reminded you, as have others, you clearly are.
You defend the mccanns, and don't seem to comprehend, the reason why this forum exists, is because of what they failed to do.
You advocate abduction, where here is no shred of evidence to back it up.
You question the intelligence or motives of others, when your motive for being on here is plainly obvious, and has been from the start.
This is the ONLY forum, afaik, which allows both sides to express their opinion & debate without being blocked/banned/deleted. Both Brietta & I were subjected to merciless deletions on Yahoo from people with no authority who had acquired the technology to remove any post they didn't like. (Yahoo doesn't have Mods).
All I ever wanted was to discuss the case. Thank you to the Mods on here who allow that to happen.
-
1A phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought:
Never. ?{)(**
I know what a cliche is jp.
Are you feeling over the moon, or as sick as a parrot ?
8)--))
I'll get me coat. *&*%£
-
This is the ONLY forum, afaik, which allows both sides to express their opinion & debate without being blocked/banned/deleted. Both Brietta & I were subjected to merciless deletions on Yahoo from people with no authority who had acquired the technology to remove any post they didn't like. (Yahoo doesn't have Mods).
All I ever wanted was to discuss the case. Thank you to the Mods on here who allow that to happen.
Amazon serves that function quite adequately.
-
This is the ONLY forum, afaik, which allows both sides to express their opinion & debate without being blocked/banned/deleted. Both Brietta & I were subjected to merciless deletions on Yahoo from people with no authority who had acquired the technology to remove any post they didn't like. (Yahoo doesn't have Mods).
All I ever wanted was to discuss the case. Thank you to the Mods on here who allow that to happen.
When was this Misty ?
-
When was this Misty ?
July 2013 onwards, Faithlilly. I started posting in June 2012 so I don't know the deleting had happened before - but I don't think it had. Basically, any "McCann supporter" was obliterated.
-
Amazon serves that function quite adequately.
I thought that was the site a certain sceptic was encouraged to organise a sustained campaign of negativity against a certain book?
-
Amazon serves that function quite adequately.
how often do you post on amazon...do you have a link to the forum
-
I know what a cliche is jp.
Are you feeling over the moon, or as sick as a parrot ?
8)--))
I'll get me coat. *&*%£
Fit as a fiddle, thank you.
I'll get my coat too! ?{)(**
-
July 2013 onwards, Faithlilly. I started posting in June 2012 so I don't know the deleting had happened before - but I don't think it had. Basically, any "McCann supporter" was obliterated.
The value of being a member of a forum such as this one which prides itself in allowing debate of differing viewpoints cannot be overestimated.
It is valued all the more if you have been on the receiving end of one which just does not tolerate diversity.
Innocently, I started posting around October 2013.
If you want to experience censorship and abuse of all kinds in the raw just nip over to a McCann board on Yahoo and post a mildly supportive comment regarding Madeleine' parents ... I guarantee the jaws of Hell will open for you.
Not only were we obliterated, our profiles were hacked, avi's taken and adulterated comments attributed to us.
It certainly was a learning curve of exactly the unscrupulous and wicked techniques adopted by those with a seemingly inbuilt antipathy to Madeleine and her family ... when one watches the counter on a post being thumbed down before one's eyes just as a demonstration ... it is instructive. I stopped counting at 89.
I realised that people who were so intent on allowing no comment but their own to stand are a big problem.
So without the immediate attack I experienced and the nasty content of the posts which really sickened and disgusted me; if I hadn't followed links to mind numbing, intelligence insulting HiDeHo videos; I would probably have made a couple of posts and moved on, still blissfully ignorant.
So that is the root of my 'obsession' ... you could probably call it freedom of speech.
No-one has ever been allowed to dictate how I will think ... I make up my own mind based on the evidence available to me ... so if that is obsessive ... so be it.
-
The value of being a member of a forum such as this one which prides itself in allowing debate of differing viewpoints cannot be overestimated.
It is valued all the more if you have been on the receiving end of one which just does not tolerate diversity.
Innocently, I started posting around October 2013.
If you want to experience censorship and abuse of all kinds in the raw just nip over to a McCann board on Yahoo and post a mildly supportive comment regarding Madeleine' parents ... I guarantee the jaws of Hell will open for you.
Not only were we obliterated, our profiles were hacked, avi's taken and adulterated comments attributed to us.
It certainly was a learning curve of exactly the unscrupulous and wicked techniques adopted by those with a seemingly inbuilt antipathy to Madeleine and her family ... when one watches the counter on a post being thumbed down before one's eyes just as a demonstration ... it is instructive. I stopped counting at 89.
I realised that people who were so intent on allowing no comment but their own to stand are a big problem.
So without the immediate attack I experienced and the nasty content of the posts which really sickened and disgusted me; if I hadn't followed links to mind numbing, intelligence insulting HiDeHo videos; I would probably have made a couple of posts and moved on, still blissfully ignorant.
So that is the root of my 'obsession' ... you could probably call it freedom of speech.
No-one has ever been allowed to dictate how I will think ... I make up my own mind based on the evidence available to me ... so if that is obsessive ... so be it.
Then of course we must not forget the sites that dislike people who are mildly critical of the McCanns.
You know the one that has been known to take screen grabs from here ?
-
Then of course we must not forget the sites that dislike people who are mildly critical of the McCanns.
You know the one that has been known to take screen grabs from here ?
no one is concerned about anyone being mildly critical of the McCanns...if you change mildly critical to continually insulting or perhaps outright libellous ...then your post might make some sense
-
Then of course we must not forget the sites that dislike people who are mildly critical of the McCanns.
You know the one that has been known to take screen grabs from here ?
I've given an example of the genesis of what could be called my 'obsession'.
Obviously you don't feel quite up to sharing the motivation for what could be called yours.
-
no one is concerned about anyone being mildly critical of the McCanns...if you change mildly critical to continually insulting or perhaps outright libellous ...then your post might make some sense
If people confined themselves to being "mildly critical" ... perhaps there would be no obsessives of either hue; but even at that, nearly eight years of mild criticism could be expected to take its toll on the recipients, whoever they might be, but particularly the parents of a missing child who could be considered as having enough to contend with.
-
no one is concerned about anyone being mildly critical of the McCanns...if you change mildly critical to continually insulting or perhaps outright libellous ...then your post might make some sense
As usual you are in feet first without reading and understanding the post.
EBBOM
-
I've given an example of the genesis of what could be called my 'obsession'.
Obviously you don't feel quite up to sharing the motivation for what could be called yours.
I have done several times. Some posters don't believe my reasons some thought I should be shown the door.
So here we go again:
My obsession is "why do people form gangs on spurious grounds just so they can try to make themselves look clever and be downright unpleasant to boot, toward anyone who is not in their gang?".
I never took much of an interest until the "libel trial" went to court then one day when The McCann Files site was down I looked over the fence in here. I could scarcely believe some of the stuff I read. Having always been argumentative I thought it might be fun to come in. It is. Simples.
-
Please note that thread has been edited and two new thread spun off from it.
-
I have done several times. Some posters don't believe my reasons some thought I should be shown the door.
So here we go again:
My obsession is "why do people form gangs on spurious grounds just so they can try to make themselves look clever and be downright unpleasant to boot, toward anyone who is not in their gang?".
I never took much of an interest until the "libel trial" went to court then one day when The McCann Files site was down I looked over the fence in here. I could scarcely believe some of the stuff I read. Having always been argumentative I thought it might be fun to come in. It is. Simples.
Do you see yourself as very much above the gang thing then? Because, like it or not, you do seem to have joined a bit of gang on here.
-
Do you see yourself as very much above the gang thing then? Because, like it or not, you do seem to have joined a bit of gang on here.
A gang Alfred.
That can easily be applied to certain mccann supporters on here.
-
The value of being a member of a forum such as this one which prides itself in allowing debate of differing viewpoints cannot be overestimated.
It is valued all the more if you have been on the receiving end of one which just does not tolerate diversity.
Innocently, I started posting around October 2013.
If you want to experience censorship and abuse of all kinds in the raw just nip over to a McCann board on Yahoo and post a mildly supportive comment regarding Madeleine' parents ... I guarantee the jaws of Hell will open for you.
Not only were we obliterated, our profiles were hacked, avi's taken and adulterated comments attributed to us.
It certainly was a learning curve of exactly the unscrupulous and wicked techniques adopted by those with a seemingly inbuilt antipathy to Madeleine and her family ... when one watches the counter on a post being thumbed down before one's eyes just as a demonstration ... it is instructive. I stopped counting at 89.
I realised that people who were so intent on allowing no comment but their own to stand are a big problem.
So without the immediate attack I experienced and the nasty content of the posts which really sickened and disgusted me; if I hadn't followed links to mind numbing, intelligence insulting HiDeHo videos; I would probably have made a couple of posts and moved on, still blissfully ignorant.
So that is the root of my 'obsession' ... you could probably call it freedom of speech.
No-one has ever been allowed to dictate how I will think ... I make up my own mind based on the evidence available to me ... so if that is obsessive ... so be it.
Great post, Brietta - eloquently put in the way I couldn't. 8@??)(
I think some posters entirely miss the point that some of us work independently from the gang culture, preferring to formulate our own opinions outwith the one-dimensional viewpoints encouraged on most forums.
-
Do you see yourself as very much above the gang thing then? Because, like it or not, you do seem to have joined a bit of gang on here.
There is one person on here to my knowledge who shares my view. So we are a gang of two. Two more and we can reform the SDP.
Your point was Alf?
-
Great post, Brietta - eloquently put in the way I couldn't. 8@??)(
I think some posters entirely miss the point that some of us work independently from the gang culture, preferring to formulate our own opinions outwith the one-dimensional viewpoints encouraged on most forums.
There are numerous parallels with certain mccann supporter forums, as you are well aware.
They don't debate, how could they,as they are closed forums. Blacksmith in particular, has made several accurate analyses of their behaviour.
-
There are numerous parallels with certain mccann supporter forums, as you are well aware.
They don't debate, how could they,as they are closed forums. Blacksmith in particular, has made several accurate analyses of their behaviour.
Yes, I have read the contents of forums supporting each side, although I've never joined or contributed to them.
Has Blacksmith done an analysis of the behaviour of the sceptics on Twitter & F/Book? It's rather hard to find McCann supporters on those sites.
-
There is one person on here to my knowledge who shares my view. So we are a gang of two. Two more and we can reform the SDP.
Your point was Alf?
What view is that Alice? I was under the impression that there was more than two people on here who had a somewhat low opinion of the McCanns and who enjoyed making known their doubts.
-
Yes, I have read the contents of forums supporting each side, although I've never joined or contributed to them.
Has Blacksmith done an analysis of the behaviour of the sceptics on Twitter & F/Book? It's rather hard to find McCann supporters on those sites.
I do know he has attacked both ends of the spectrum
I have not read all of Blacksmith's posts by far, and venture onto twitter and facebook even less.
Twitter has largely become a cesspit.
-
As usual you are in feet first without reading and understanding the post.
EBBOM
I understood the post...it seems you don't understand your own post.....seems I understood it well as Brietta made a similar comment
-
I understood the post...it seems you don't understand your own post.....seems I understood it well as Brietta made a similar comment
It is such a shame you were both wrong then isn't it? And for approximately the same reason
-
It is such a shame you were both wrong then isn't it? And for approximately the same reason
would you like to point out how we are both wrong re your reference to "mild criticism"....as we both pointed out...mild criticism is not the problem...you are wrong ...best just admit and move on rather than continual wriggling
-
What view is that Alice? I was under the impression that there was more than two people on here who had a somewhat low opinion of the McCanns and who enjoyed making known their doubts.
There probably are.
I don't recall slagging off the McCanns in my posts.
-
would you like to point out how we are both wrong re your reference to "mild criticism"....as we both pointed out...mild criticism is not the problem...you are wrong ...best just admit and move on rather than continual wriggling
Go back and read the post properly. You both read what you wanted to read not what was written.
But whatever you say Ace it's all the same to me.
-
Go back and read the post properly. You both read what you wanted to read not what was written.
But whatever you say Ace it's all the same to me.
perhaps you just expected to get away with BS
-
perhaps you just expected to get away with BS
You are leading with your chin again I see.
Don't judge others by yourself or whatever it says in Romans.
-
You are leading with your chin again I see.
Don't judge others by yourself or whatever it says in Romans.
the lady doth protest too much methinks ...except you are a bloke
-
There probably are.
I don't recall slagging off the McCanns in my posts.
I don't recall saying you had.
-
You are leading with your chin again I see.
Don't judge others by yourself or whatever it says in Romans.
davel is a prime example of being obsessed with the mcanns
-
getting back on topic, the posting of pure BS by Alice has made me realise why people are obsessed...it's not so much with the McCanns as just obsessed with posting online in general.
In the real world its necessary to say something intelligent to earn respect and have people listen to you. In the virtual world any idiot simply has to say the McCanns are shit parents. The poster will then be applauded as a genius and immediately gains a whole gang of friends who patiently wait for his next gem. So the person who in the real world is a right plonker can easily achieve celebrity status online.
-
davel is a prime example of being obsessed with the mcanns
see my thread above
-
Please refrain from using insults in posts and adhere to the topic of discussion. Thank you.
-
The value of being a member of a forum such as this one which prides itself in allowing debate of differing viewpoints cannot be overestimated.
It is valued all the more if you have been on the receiving end of one which just does not tolerate diversity.
Innocently, I started posting around October 2013.
If you want to experience censorship and abuse of all kinds in the raw just nip over to a McCann board on Yahoo and post a mildly supportive comment regarding Madeleine' parents ... I guarantee the jaws of Hell will open for you.
Not only were we obliterated, our profiles were hacked, avi's taken and adulterated comments attributed to us.
It certainly was a learning curve of exactly the unscrupulous and wicked techniques adopted by those with a seemingly inbuilt antipathy to Madeleine and her family ... when one watches the counter on a post being thumbed down before one's eyes just as a demonstration ... it is instructive. I stopped counting at 89.
I realised that people who were so intent on allowing no comment but their own to stand are a big problem.
So without the immediate attack I experienced and the nasty content of the posts which really sickened and disgusted me; if I hadn't followed links to mind numbing, intelligence insulting HiDeHo videos; I would probably have made a couple of posts and moved on, still blissfully ignorant.
So that is the root of my 'obsession' ... you could probably call it freedom of speech.
No-one has ever been allowed to dictate how I will think ... I make up my own mind based on the evidence available to me ... so if that is obsessive ... so be it.
McCann board on Yahoo? What they they? Do you mean the comments under articles?
-
getting back on topic, the posting of pure BS by Alice has made me realise why people are obsessed...it's not so much with the McCanns as just obsessed with posting online in general.
In the real world its necessary to say something intelligent to earn respect and have people listen to you. In the virtual world any idiot simply has to say the McCanns are shit parents. The poster will then be applauded as a genius and immediately gains a whole gang of friends who patiently wait for his next gem. So the person who in the real world is a right plonker can easily achieve celebrity status online.
Do you agree the action Sky News took has made this much worse?
-
McCann board on Yahoo? What they they? Do you mean the comments under articles?
You haven't lived if you've missed out on the Yahoo experience.
-
You haven't lived if you've missed out on the Yahoo experience.
I must have %£&)**#
-
Do you agree the action Sky News took has made this much worse?
In what way
-
getting back on topic, the posting of pure BS by Alice has made me realise why people are obsessed...it's not so much with the McCanns as just obsessed with posting online in general.
In the real world its necessary to say something intelligent to earn respect and have people listen to you. In the virtual world any idiot simply has to say the McCanns are shit parents. The poster will then be applauded as a genius and immediately gains a whole gang of friends who patiently wait for his next gem. So the person who in the real world is a right plonker can easily achieve celebrity status online.
Better start trying then boy. I presume in real life you are not the ill mannered simpleton you are on here.
Your problem is : were you half as bright as you think you are you would in fact be twice as bright as you really are.
-
You haven't lived if you've missed out on the Yahoo experience.
Hasn't that shut down now? Misty.
-
Hasn't that shut down now? Misty.
It's still up & running, Anna. just no MM stories on it currently to comment on. Yahoo have tried to change their security but the deleters are still able to run amok.
-
It's still up & running, Anna. just no MM stories on it currently to comment on. Yahoo have tried to change their security but the deleters are still able to run amok.
Oh Dear! A dreadful place. I liked to read the news on there until, I posted a nice comment about Prince William and the new baby who was expected and I was bombarded with nasty insults. I couldn't believe it. @)(++(*
Didn't post again. Who needs that sort of interaction? It's not debate......It's attack.
Are they out looking for something to get obsessed about, or what?
-
Oh Dear! A dreadful place. I liked to read the news on there until, I posted a nice comment about Prince William and the new baby who was expected and I was bombarded with nasty insults. I couldn't believe it. @)(++(*
Didn't post again. Who needs that sort of interaction? It's not debate......It's attack.
Are they out looking for something to get obsessed about, or what?
Most of them are possessed as well as obsessed, Anna. I've learned, at my cost, that it's not a place for the nice people (rather like twitter). However, I still like to have my pennyworth when it comes to supporting the McCanns on there.
-
Better start trying then boy. I presume in real life you are not the ill mannered simpleton you are on here.
Your problem is : were you half as bright as you think you are you would in fact be twice as bright as you really are.
still running with the personal insults and unable to make a valid contribution to the discussion...you prove my point very well.
-
I can understand why people were misled initially as there was so much false information being fed into the system.
Now that we know many of the press leaks were falsifications, I'm not sure I comprehend why people still obsess about the original headlines and ignore the fact they were wrong to begin with and at best a distortion of fact.
The cultural differences which allegedly aroused police suspicions have long since been subject to clarification but are still regularly quoted to justify 'suspicion'.
For example, the request made by Dr Kate McCann to see a priest was misinterpreted as apparently Portuguese would only make the request in the event of a death.
http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/05/23/madeleine-mccann-case-reopened/
Similarly as noted in Mr Amaral's book, the suspicions aroused by the marked passage in the bible on Dr McCann's bedside table.
(a) the bible was not hers. It had been borrowed which should have been clear from the
dedication written on the cover page, and the pages marked had been marked by the
bible's owner.
(b) The passage which was used to illustrate that they were grieving for Madeleine's death
had been marked by the owner and was read at a traumatic time in her life and since.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm#mccann
Despite clarification of both these instances, the mistaken interpretation of cultural differences strangely continue to be quoted and hotly discussed.
Obsession or what?
-
I can understand why people were misled initially as there was so much false information being fed into the system.
Now that we know many of the press leaks were falsifications, I'm not sure I comprehend why people still obsess about the original headlines and ignore the fact they were wrong to begin with and at best a distortion of fact.
The cultural differences which allegedly aroused police suspicions have long since been subject to clarification but are still regularly quoted to justify 'suspicion'.
For example, the request made by Dr Kate McCann to see a priest was misinterpreted as apparently Portuguese would only make the request in the event of a death.
http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/05/23/madeleine-mccann-case-reopened/
Similarly as noted in Mr Amaral's book, the suspicions aroused by the marked passage in the bible on Dr McCann's bedside table.
(a) the bible was not hers. It had been borrowed which should have been clear from the
dedication written on the cover page, and the pages marked had been marked by the
bible's owner.
(b) The passage which was used to illustrate that they were grieving for Madeleine's death
had been marked by the owner and was read at a traumatic time in her life and since.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PE-PA.htm#mccann
Despite clarification of both these instances, the mistaken interpretation of cultural differences strangely continue to be quoted and hotly discussed.
Obsession or what?
I've not seen that here.
-
I've not seen that here.
Have no fear I'll get round to McCluskey // Smith anomalies, similarities and obsessions.
-
Have no fear I'll get round to McCluskey // Smith anomalies, similarities and obsessions.
Yes, I'm sure you'll do your utmost to try & explain away the glaringly obvious.
-
Obsession takes a new turn, and it's not very pretty. This woman gets naked for Madeleine and talks about hope bring "repulsive" in the context of Madeleine being alive. Instead she insists quite unequivocally (and some might say quite gleefully) that Madeleine is dead. Repulsive is a word I would use to describe this woman's actions, that and utterly, hopelessly obsessed.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=385231744994173
-
Obsession takes a new turn, and it's not very pretty. This woman gets naked for Madeleine and talks about hope bring "repulsive" in the context of Madeleine being alive. Instead she insists quite unequivocally (and some might say quite gleefully) that Madeleine is dead. Repulsive is a word I would use to describe this woman's actions, that and utterly, hopelessly obsessed.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=385231744994173
That link didn't work Alfred, but I don't want to see a weirdo naked really, if that's what it was.
Just how much stranger can one get?
-
That link didn't work Alfred, but I don't want to see a weirdo naked really, if that's what it was.
Just how much stranger can one get?
God knows. Maybe it's just a sick joke?
-
God knows. Maybe it's just a sick joke?
Nothing would surprise me from the twitter-facebook folk.
-
Obsession takes a new turn, and it's not very pretty. This woman gets naked for Madeleine and talks about hope bring "repulsive" in the context of Madeleine being alive. Instead she insists quite unequivocally (and some might say quite gleefully) that Madeleine is dead. Repulsive is a word I would use to describe this woman's actions, that and utterly, hopelessly obsessed.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=385231744994173
A disturbing post by I would think a seriously disturbed individual.
-
Obsession takes a new turn, and it's not very pretty. This woman gets naked for Madeleine and talks about hope bring "repulsive" in the context of Madeleine being alive. Instead she insists quite unequivocally (and some might say quite gleefully) that Madeleine is dead. Repulsive is a word I would use to describe this woman's actions, that and utterly, hopelessly obsessed.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=385231744994173
I have really seen it all now !!
-
A disturbing post by I would think a seriously disturbed individual.
She's more actress than anything, but that facebook post might be a hoax anyway.
It'll go down like a lead balloon in either case.
-
I have really seen it all now !!
No you haven't - there was a placard in the way... 8)-)))
-
I have really seen it all now !!
No you haven't - there was a placard in the way... 8)-)))
Probably hiding something mysterious like Alfie's comfort blanket! &%+((£
-
Probably hiding something mysterious like Alfie's comfort blanket! &%+((£
Hello, thanks for the putdown - who are you, anyway? A moderator I see...have we met before?
-
No you haven't - there was a placard in the way... 8)-)))
?{)(**
-
Hello, thanks for the putdown - who are you, anyway? A moderator I see...have we met before?
No Alfred, we haven't met before. I'm only here to make up the numbers in the dwindling Bamber section... and to provide a little light entertainment along the way!
I steer clear of the McCann minefield, TYVM 8((()*/
-
No Alfred, we haven't met before. I'm only here to make up the numbers in the dwindling Bamber section... and to provide a little light entertainment along the way!
I steer clear of the McCann minefield, TYVM 8((()*/
You're wise to do so, goodbye.
-
Someone who is apparently now deceased (RIP), due to illness, started numerous anti-Mccann-related blogs.
I've no idea exactly how many... somewhere around 50 would seem to be a reasonable estimate (perhaps fewer or perhaps many more).
I can empathise with the fact that the person in question was battling an illness. I can also understand that she may have needed some kind of unrelated focus on which to address her attention.
Perhaps her numerous blogs were simply a way of leaving a trace that she existed.
However, I don't understand the fierce attack on a family that she presumably didn't know, and who simply contented herself with repeating long-discredited "news" or views.
Were those who encouraged her really her "friends", or were they simply encouraging her for other reasons?
-
Someone who is apparently now deceased (RIP), due to illness, started numerous anti-Mccann-related blogs.
I've no idea exactly how many... somewhere around 50 would seem to be a reasonable estimate (perhaps fewer or perhaps many more).
I can empathise with the fact that the person in question was battling an illness. I can also understand that she may have needed some kind of unrelated focus on which to address her attention.
Perhaps her numerous blogs were simply a way of leaving a trace that she existed.
However, I don't understand the fierce attack on a family that she presumably didn't know, and who simply contented herself with repeating long-discredited "news" or views.
Were those who encouraged her really her "friends", or were they simply encouraging her for other reasons?
Or perhaps she just thought the story the McCanns told just didn't hang together and so did her friends ?
-
Or perhaps she just thought the story the McCanns told just didn't hang together and so did her friends ?
Valid point... however, if her state of health enabled her to create 50 or so blogs, she could presumably have also analyzed and avoided repeating articles based on discredited myths.
-
A disturbing post by I would think a seriously disturbed individual.
The content has been removed.
-
Valid point... however, if her state of health enabled her to create 50 or so blogs, she could presumably have also analyzed and avoided repeating articles based on discredited myths.
Not sure what her health has to do with it but I'm afraid repeating myths isn't something peculiar to sceptics.
-
Someone who is apparently now deceased (RIP), due to illness, started numerous anti-Mccann-related blogs.
I've no idea exactly how many... somewhere around 50 would seem to be a reasonable estimate (perhaps fewer or perhaps many more).
I can empathise with the fact that the person in question was battling an illness. I can also understand that she may have needed some kind of unrelated focus on which to address her attention.
Perhaps her numerous blogs were simply a way of leaving a trace that she existed.
However, I don't understand the fierce attack on a family that she presumably didn't know, and who simply contented herself with repeating long-discredited "news" or views.
Were those who encouraged her really her "friends", or were they simply encouraging her for other reasons?
I wonder if she knew her illness was terminal?
No one knows how they would react when told they had a short time to live; I find it very sad that this woman spent her precious time working to leave a legacy ultimately to hurt others she didn't even know.
Which makes the actions of the many wonderful people who direct their energies to helping others despite their own diagnosis all the more cherished.
Short term and long term I think that is a better legacy to illustrate the power of the human spirit. These are just three of these remarkable people who gave and are giving their precious time benefit others ...
Stephen Sutton; who was subjected to troll attacks because he had a very short remission and didn't die on cue https://www.justgiving.com/stephen-sutton-tct/
Tom Attw..er ; raising money to help his daughter who has cancer despite his own illness being terminal. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/baby-miracle-dad-tom-faces-4695286
Jak Trueman; who is raising money for additional support for young cancer sufferers. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/brave-teenager-terminal-cancer-promises-5056068
-
I wonder if she knew her illness was terminal?
No one knows how they would react when told they had a short time to live; I find it very sad that this woman spent her precious time working to leave a legacy ultimately to hurt others she didn't even know.
On the contrary I think that it's laudable that she spent her last month's on this earth working for a cause she believed in, justice for a little girl let down so badly by her parents.
-
On the contrary I think that it's laudable that she spent her last month's on this earth working for a cause she believed in, justice for a little girl let down so badly by her parents.
working for a cause.......that has to be the most ridiculous and most revealing post for a long time
-
On the contrary I think that it's laudable that she spent her last month's on this earth working for a cause she believed in, justice for a little girl let down so badly by her parents.
How do you suppose her "work" has helped towards achieving justice for Madeleine?
-
working for a cause.......that has to be the most ridiculous and most revealing post for a long time
I find it astounding that people think it is acceptable to disregard the opinions of professional people who have gone over the circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance with a fine tooth comb and have decided, on the evidence available to them, that Madeleine McCann's parents had no part in her disappearance.
In my opinion they really don't care ... if their malice wasn't being directed at the Drs McCann ... someone else would be the recipient.
-
How do you suppose her "work" has helped towards achieving justice for Madeleine?
No idea Alfie. You'd have had to ask her that.
-
No idea Alfie. You'd have had to ask her that.
If you have no idea then it hasn't.....
-
No idea Alfie. You'd have had to ask her that.
I thought she was dead?
-
I thought she was dead?
That's why I posted 'you'd have had' Alfie.
-
That's why I posted 'you'd have had' Alfie.
Surely her actions should be able to speak for themselves? What's her legacy?
-
I find it astounding that people think it is acceptable to disregard the opinions of professional people who have gone over the circumstances of Madeleine McCann's disappearance with a fine tooth comb and have decided, on the evidence available to them, that Madeleine McCann's parents had no part in her disappearance.
In my opinion they really don't care ... if their malice wasn't being directed at the Drs McCann ... someone else would be the recipient.
Of course it's acceptable, it's not yet a police state. As if you'd find police saying the opposite acceptable.
-
Of course it's acceptable, it's not yet a police state. As if you'd find police saying the opposite acceptable.
brianna refers to kate as a doctor she has not been a doctor for 8 years
-
brianna refers to kate as a doctor she has not been a doctor for 8 years
She is still a qualified doctor, Carli. Just not a practising doctor at present.
-
Surely her actions should be able to speak for themselves? What's her legacy?
Only when the case is solved will we be able to define her legacy.
-
Only when the case is solved will we be able to define her legacy.
You think it's possible the Met have been using her "work" to help them try to solve the case then?
-
You think it's possible the Met have been using her "work" to help them try to solve the case then?
absolutely hilarious
-
You think it's possible the Met have been using her "work" to help them try to solve the case then?
No. @)(++(*
-
No. @)(++(*
So her "work" will make absolutely b....r all difference to "Justice For Maddie". What a waste of time, eh?
-
Of course it's acceptable, it's not yet a police state. As if you'd find police saying the opposite acceptable.
Mounting vicious campaigns against people one does not know ... in circumstances about which, let's face it one knows nothing ... despite the forces of law and order saying there is no evidence against them, is acceptable? OK then, if that is your opinion, sad, but you are entitled to it.
-
Mounting vicious campaigns against people one does not know ... in circumstances about which, let's face it one knows nothing ... despite the forces of law and order saying there is no evidence against them, is acceptable? OK then, if that is your opinion, sad, but you are entitled to it.
It's no different to people discussing other cases. People will always discuss this case, and there's nothing you or anyone can do to stop that.
-
So her "work" will make absolutely b....r all difference to "Justice For Maddie". What a waste of time, eh?
That's what they said about individuals who raised concerns about Saville.
-
That's what they said about individuals who raised concerns about Saville.
%£&)**# And that's what they kept telling Nick Davies.
-
That's what they said about individuals who raised concerns about Saville.
Who do you mean?
-
That's what they said about individuals who raised concerns about Saville.
That's a very poor argument.....what about all the concerns Icke has raised as regards the lizards...will he be proved right to
-
The only people who had concerns about Savile who were worth listening to were those that had direct contact with him, or with those who suffered at his hands, not those who never had anything whatsoever to do with him and who had only heard rumours on the internet and who thought he looked a bit dodgy on TOTP..
-
It's no different to people discussing other cases. People will always discuss this case, and there's nothing you or anyone can do to stop that.
OK. Please direct me to the other cases where the equivalent number of internet sites have been set up specifically to discuss what they see as 'suspicions' directed towards the parents of the missing as has been done in Madeleine McCann's case.
-
OK. Please direct me to the other cases where the equivalent number of internet sites have been set up specifically to discuss what they see as 'suspicions' directed towards the parents of the missing as has been done in Madeleine McCann's case.
It's not the public's fault that the McCanns engender such doubt within the populous.
-
It's not the public's fault that the McCanns engender such doubt within the populous.
Are they that Greek Family at No. 17?
-
OK. Please direct me to the other cases where the equivalent number of internet sites have been set up specifically to discuss what they see as 'suspicions' directed towards the parents of the missing as has been done in Madeleine McCann's case.
There's never been a case like this one after the internet grew has there. Not involving the UK anyway, but in US there are obviously comparisons.
I'm not defending much of what's gone on since 2007 online, but it's really not difficult to explain why it happened.
-
There's never been a case like this one after the internet grew has there. Not involving the UK anyway, but in US there are obviously comparisons.
I'm not defending much of what's gone on since 2007 online, but it's really not difficult to explain why it happened.
I agree, Lyall, to an extent.
I think this case is not only unique, in the fact that a child disappeared from her bed, while on holiday abroad and no trace of her has ever been found, but also and probably more importantly, in the case of researching, is that the detailed files including, Statements are available for all to peruse.
I believe that the above, a book(free to read on line), the internet and press articles, have fuelled the interest of those searching for the truth, or what may have started as mere curiosity, becoming an obsessive pastime.
Some who feel that they have discovered what they perceive to be proof of the parents involvement, have, in some cases, made a very nasty game of scoring points, against those who believe in their innocence and vice versa. Nothing will change this.
This obsession is akin to, the violent fanatical type of football supporters and at its worst, racism, but as the battle that rages on, gathers speed, even nastier retorts and more warriors of an obsessive nature, on their march to prove their righteousness, it is becoming, much, much worse IMO.
In the meantime a family is going through hell and being torn to bits by people they have never even met………………Justice?
As we all know, there is no evidence to date as to what may have happened to Madeleine.
We can only await any new evidence in the case and pray that it will soon be resolved………………..Well, I do!
-
I've read articles about people becoming obsessed over scoring points on online games and saying / doing nasty things to / about their opponents. I've no idea whether to what extent it may be true or not, but then I've never understood the mentality behind hooliganism of any sort.
I have no problem with people asking legitimate questions... but I do have a problem with people repeating myths that they must know to be false.
Why do they do this? What is the point?
-
I've read articles about people becoming obsessed over scoring points on online games and saying / doing nasty things to / about their opponents. I've no idea whether to what extent it may be true or not, but then I've never understood the mentality behind hooliganism of any sort.
I have no problem with people asking legitimate questions... but I do have a problem with people repeating myths that they must know to be false.
Why do they do this? What is the point?
As was said in the recent Sun article people who want to be noticed online feel they have to be outrageous. That's an easily observable phenomenon.
-
I've read articles about people becoming obsessed over scoring points on online games and saying / doing nasty things to / about their opponents. I've no idea whether to what extent it may be true or not, but then I've never understood the mentality behind hooliganism of any sort.
I have no problem with people asking legitimate questions... but I do have a problem with people repeating myths that they must know to be false.
Why do they do this? What is the point?
Yes it appears to be the case with many contest participants.....bad losers.
However there are no winners or losers with this case, since nobody knows what happened to Maddie. The repetitive chants are to say the least.....most irritating and of no use in debate or research, to anyone.
-
As was said in the recent Sun article people who want to be noticed online feel they have to be outrageous. That's an easily observable phenomenon.
Is this different from the motivation to behave outrageously during football matches? Or is it simply a virtual outlet for similar behaviour?
-
It's a unique case Anna, and there's no precedent for how to deal with the issues discussion of this case has generated. I doubt the McCanns themselves take much notice of it though, if any.
-
Is this different from the motivation to behave outrageously during football matches? Or is it simply a virtual outlet for similar behaviour?
Virtual outlet is a good description, Carana. One can do as much harm, without the use of fists or weapons, as they can with and even more if it is rival gang or mob rule.
-
Is this different from the motivation to behave outrageously during football matches? Or is it simply a virtual outlet for similar behaviour?
I don't think so. A missing child generates strong feelings, and that's natural. That's why discussion of this case will last longer than the Dando, Kelly and Diana cases.
-
If you're gullible enough to believe the McCanns.
And Off Topic Posts are going to be deleted shortly.
-
You usually hit delete the moment I press post .
Why the delay?
Because you occasionally come up with something sensible.
-
Because you occasionally come up with something sensible.
I try not to.
-
I try not to.
That is a pity. I've seen some quite good posts from you recently. They must have been an aberration.
-
I've read articles about people becoming obsessed over scoring points on online games and saying / doing nasty things to / about their opponents. I've no idea whether to what extent it may be true or not, but then I've never understood the mentality behind hooliganism of any sort.
I have no problem with people asking legitimate questions... but I do have a problem with people repeating myths that they must know to be false.
Why do they do this? What is the point?
Some people find use of the internet very convenient for their own ends.
There are those who manipulate for advertising and propaganda purposes ... and there are those who are happy to be manipulated.
For example ... a blog pushing a particular political viewpoint took exception to an individual appearing on a political leaflet promoting another party ... suggested (did not accuse) the individual was an actress and posted her picture alongside that of a professional actress who looked nothing like her.
That was enough to unleash a vitriolic internet storm with people really believing what they thought they had read and seen on the blog.
Oh the power of propaganda.
-
Some people find use of the internet very convenient for their own ends.
There are those who manipulate for advertising and propaganda purposes ... and there are those who are happy to be manipulated.
For example ... a blog pushing a particular political viewpoint took exception to an individual appearing on a political leaflet promoting another party ... suggested (did not accuse) the individual was an actress and posted her picture alongside that of a professional actress who looked nothing like her.
That was enough to unleash a vitriolic internet storm with people really believing what they thought they had read and seen on the blog.
Oh the power of propaganda.
Indeed.
-
Why am I obsessed? I would like to think that it is altruistic and a pursuit of Justice as I hope it to be. But it isn't, of course.
I live alone and do need some level of communication with the outside world, good or bad though it may be. So I suspect that this is the reason for why I am here. And pleased to assist anyone who needs the same thing, no matter if they disagree with me.
But I do think that we all have to understand in our own heads, the reasons for why we do this.
-
Some people find use of the internet very convenient for their own ends.
There are those who manipulate for advertising and propaganda purposes ... and there are those who are happy to be manipulated.
For example ... a blog pushing a particular political viewpoint took exception to an individual appearing on a political leaflet promoting another party ... suggested (did not accuse) the individual was an actress and posted her picture alongside that of a professional actress who looked nothing like her.
That was enough to unleash a vitriolic internet storm with people really believing what they thought they had read and seen on the blog.
Oh the power of propaganda.
and pray tell what do you think the mccanns have been doing via their PR propaganda for the last few years ?
Talking to the trees ? 8)--))
-
and pray tell what do you think the mccanns have been doing via their PR propaganda for the last few years ?
Talking to the trees ? 8)--))
And what have you been doing for the last few years?
-
And what have you been doing for the last few years?
Working.
How about you ? 8)-)))
-
Working.
How about you ? 8)-)))
Getting obsessed about The McCann Case. And trying to moderate the excesses of this Forum, among others.
-
Why am I obsessed? I would like to think that it is altruistic and a pursuit of Justice as I hope it to be. But it isn't, of course.
I live alone and do need some level of communication with the outside world, good or bad though it may be. So I suspect that this is the reason for why I am here. And pleased to assist anyone who needs the same thing, no matter if they disagree with me.
But I do think that we all have to understand in our own heads, the reasons for why we do this.
That is one of the most honest posts I have ever read here. Thank you Eleanor.
-
That is one of the most honest posts I have ever read here. Thank you Eleanor.
Thank you, Faith. You response almost made me cry. So we do actually have a level of communication.
-
Working.
How about you ? 8)-)))
are you able to post from work as you do seem to be on the forum throughout the day
-
are you able to post from work as you do seem to be on the forum throughout the day
I don't think that this is necessarily true. Stephen does disappear on occasions for brief periods of time. But then so do I.
But then perhaps I am more aware.
-
Thank you, Faith. You response almost made me cry. So we do actually have a level of communication.
Take this case out of the equation and I'm sure we'd find that the other wasn't so bad after all 8(0(*
-
Take this case out of the equation and I'm sure we'd find that the other wasn't so bad after all 8(0(*
What other one? When all else is lost I do remain on the side of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. But I accept that you don't have to.
It is basically the nastiness that that I find hard to deal with, although that can come from both sides, and I don't have the time or the patience to decide who started it. You are all very good at slipping that in. All of you. So often really good debate gets ruined.
And believe me, I can spot a good debate when I see it. But two or three pages of utter shite does this Forum no good at all.
-
are you able to post from work as you do seem to be on the forum throughout the day
Just because my computer is signed in, it doesn't mean I am online all day, every day.
As has been observed and as a matter of record, look at the number of posts made by you, and that doesn't count the deleted ones.
-
Just because my computer is signed in, it doesn't mean I am online all day, every day.
As has been observed and as a matter of record, look at the number of posts made by you, and that doesn't count the deleted ones.
I post from work sometimes...just asking if you do as you post throughout the day..as for my number of posts...I have always had a lot to say for myself...nothing wrong with that in my book
-
How many posts have I made? Who cares?
-
Back on the topic of the thread, Please.
-
I don't know so much about obsession, per say, (perhaps in some chats) I think this case being the mystery it is, is a draw or constant disussion thanks to the Family and 'friends' of the family, (PR) to keep up interest. Which keeps the 'fund' filled, well untill people became more interested,due to the Portugal court case.
The Family no longer enjoy the great support they had in the beginning. Perhaps due to apathy, or people becomming more savvy about what acutally happened minus the smoke screen! OR becoming bored with the claims about abduction.
-
I don't know so much about obsession, per say, (perhaps in some chats) I think this case being the mystery it is, is a draw or constant disussion thanks to the Family and 'friends' of the family, (PR) to keep up interest. Which keeps the 'fund' filled, well untill people became more interested,due to the Portugal court case.
The Family no longer enjoy the great support they had in the beginning. Perhaps due to apathy, or people becomming more savvy about what acutally happened minus the smoke screen! OR becoming bored with the claims about abduction.
As both SY and the PJ have ruled the parents out as suspects, can you explain what has enabled people to become ''more savvy about what actually happened.'' What is it they know about the particulars of this case which SY must have missed - and from where did they get this new information?
-
More savvy as in becoming aware of the lies being told by the parents. eg the distance from the apartment, the timeline for checking, using the fund for which they were unaware before what the money was being used for..but then SY know this already...just some people who were taking in all the McCann PR no longer do so.
Shame!
-
More savvy as in becoming aware of the lies being told by the parents. eg the distance from the apartment, the timeline for checking, using the fund for which they were unaware before what the money was being used for..but then SY know this already...just some people who were taking in all the McCann PR no longer do so.
Shame!
So why do you think SY and the PJ have decided to ignore all these lies which are apparently so obvious to you?
After all, unlike ourselves, they have the advantage of having all - not just some - of the professionally translated files/statements and the ability to interview anyone at any time - and so obviously are in a far better position to identify any lies than we are. If they have indeed identified lies by the parents - then they must have decided to turn a blind eye to them because they have ruled them out as suspects. Why would they do that? It makes no sense to me.
-
So why do you think SY and the PJ have decided to ignore all these lies which are apparently so obvious to you?
After all, unlike ourselves, they have the advantage of having all - not just some - of the professionally translated files/statements and the ability to interview anyone at any time - and so obviously are in a far better position to identify any lies than we are. If they have indeed identified lies by the parents - then they must have decided to turn a blind eye to them because they have ruled them out as suspects. Why would they do that? It makes no sense to me.
They are obvious to everyone not just me. Let's be clear about that. You chose not to see it. That is fine,just don't deny it, it makes you look like you have an 'agenda'.
There are NO suspects...NO evidence- NO charges being brought- crime of the century. This does not mean the SY and PJ believe the McCanns to be 'innocent' of anything. No blind eyes have been
-
They are obvious to everyone not just me. Let's be clear about that. You chose not to see it. That is fine,just don't deny it, it makes you look like you have an 'agenda'.
There are NO suspects...NO evidence- NO charges being brought- crime of the century. This does not mean the SY and PJ believe the McCanns to be 'innocent' of anything. No blind eyes have been
So what do you think the PJ and SY believe the McCanns are guilty of?
-
They are obvious to everyone not just me. Let's be clear about that. You chose not to see it. That is fine,just don't deny it, it makes you look like you have an 'agenda'.
There are NO suspects...NO evidence- NO charges being brought- crime of the century. This does not mean the SY and PJ believe the McCanns to be 'innocent' of anything. No blind eyes have been
The arguidos in Portugal would be so relieved if they knew of that learned analysis.
Yup! I think it probably makes the top rating as an example of obsession.
-
So what do you think the PJ and SY believe the McCanns are guilty of?
I have no idea what they believe, but, as you and your ilk keep posting the 'not suspects' rant, it has become clear that you all believe this is a verdict of 'not guilty' of something. I was just correcting that assumption. They have not been declared 'not guilty' of something.
NB: I have posted under 370 posts, you and the other non obsessive, Brietta have posted thousands of times...
All that goading and name calling goes way above my head. I think you lot are hilarious!
I did giggle at being called obsessive by Bretta, oh the irony!!
-
As I understand it the PJ discovered new material which they believed justified the reopening of their investigation. The Portugese Attorney General agreed. I can't find anything which says they have ruled anyone out of their investigation, but am happy to be corrected by reference to a reliable source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10402102/Madeleine-McCann-case-reopened-by-Portugal-police.html
Regardless of the intentions or beliefs of Operation Grange the Portugese authorities retain the lead in the investigation.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
-
As I understand it the PJ discovered new material which they believed justified the reopening of their investigation. The Portugese Attorney General agreed. I can't find anything which says they have ruled anyone out of their investigation, but am happy to be corrected by reference to a reliable source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10402102/Madeleine-McCann-case-reopened-by-Portugal-police.html
Regardless of the intentions or beliefs of Operation Grange the Portugese authorities retain the lead in the investigation.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
I think it is blatantly obvious the McCanns are not suspects. It doesn't matter what either police force say re the situation as the sceptics simply would not believe it.....an ostrich head in the sand mentality
-
As I understand it the PJ discovered new material which they believed justified the reopening of their investigation. The Portugese Attorney General agreed. I can't find anything which says they have ruled anyone out of their investigation, but am happy to be corrected by reference to a reliable source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10402102/Madeleine-McCann-case-reopened-by-Portugal-police.html
Regardless of the intentions or beliefs of Operation Grange the Portugese authorities retain the lead in the investigation.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
I find it difficult to believe that anyone interested in this case has missed DCI Redwood's statement that neither the McCanns nor their friends are either suspects or persons of interest in this case!
What could be more clear? And who could be deemed a more reliable source than the police officer in charge of the investigation?
Personally I have only read press articles regarding the PJ stating they were not suspects - and also that the McCanns have met the Oporto team. This is an extract from the Times article which also reported on the Efits - whether you regard it as 'reliable' or not is your prerogative.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
unquote
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone interested in this case has missed DCI Redwood's statement that neither the McCanns nor their friends are either suspects or persons of interest in this case!
What could be more clear? And who could be deemed a more reliable source than the police officer in charge of the investigation?
Personally I have only read press articles regarding the PJ stating they were not suspects - and also that the McCanns have met the Oporto team. This is an extract from the Times article which also reported on the Efits - whether you regard it as 'reliable' or not is your prerogative.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
unquote
Oh let me make this easier to those who wish to remove their heads from the sand.
The great believers tell us that The McCanns are not suspects...not suspects in what? what is being investigated? Well, as we are also told by the great believers SY and PJ are investigating the ABDUCTION THEORY. and it is only a theory!
So, let us deduce from this information that IN THE ABDUCTION THEORY, being investigated, the parents are not suspects.
The abduction Theory has yet to be verified and evidenced, in the absence of this..IT IS STILL A THEORY, like many others!
AND as a matter of fact DCI Redwood is not in charge of any 'investigation , in Portugal.
Now, what about other theories...has anyone in any Police force said they are not suspects?
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone interested in this case has missed DCI Redwood's statement that neither the McCanns nor their friends are either suspects or persons of interest in this case!
What could be more clear? And who could be deemed a more reliable source than the police officer in charge of the investigation?
Personally I have only read press articles regarding the PJ stating they were not suspects - and also that the McCanns have met the Oporto team. This is an extract from the Times article which also reported on the Efits - whether you regard it as 'reliable' or not is your prerogative.
Oh let me make this easier to those who wish to remove their heads from the sand.
The great believers tell us that The McCanns are not suspects...not suspects in what? what is being investigated? Well, as we are also told by the great believers SY and PJ are investigating the ABDUCTION THEORY. and it is only a theory!
So, let us deduce from this information that IN THE ABDUCTION THEORY, being investigated, the parents are not suspects.
The abduction Theory has yet to be verified and evidenced, in the absence of this..IT IS STILL A THEORY, like many others!
AND as a matter of fact DCI Redwood is not in charge of any 'investigation , in Portugal.
Now, what about other theories...has anyone in any Police force said they are not suspects?
The McCanns are not suspects and are not being investigated into Maddie's disappearance...that's it
-
The McCanns are not suspects and are not being investigated into Maddie's disappearance...that's it
So, Suspects they are then.
-
I don't know how this post was caught inside someone eles's but THIS is my section, apologies if this confused anyone.
Oh let me make this easier to those who wish to remove their heads from the sand.
The great believers tell us that The McCanns are not suspects...not suspects in what? what is being investigated? Well, as we are also told by the great believers SY and PJ are investigating the ABDUCTION THEORY. and it is only a theory!
So, let us deduce from this information that IN THE ABDUCTION THEORY, being investigated, the parents are not suspects.
The abduction Theory has yet to be verified and evidenced, in the absence of this..IT IS STILL A THEORY, like many others!
AND as a matter of fact DCI Redwood is not in charge of any 'investigation , in Portugal.
Now, what about other theories...has anyone in any Police force said they are not suspects?
For Dave: to make it clearer...
So, they are NOT suspects in the abduction theory, but we don't know about how the Police feel about their involvement of other theories!
-
I don't know how this post was caught inside someone eles's but THIS is my section, apologies if this confused anyone.
Oh let me make this easier to those who wish to remove their heads from the sand.
The great believers tell us that The McCanns are not suspects...not suspects in what? what is being investigated? Well, as we are also told by the great believers SY and PJ are investigating the ABDUCTION THEORY. and it is only a theory!
So, let us deduce from this information that IN THE ABDUCTION THEORY, being investigated, the parents are not suspects.
The abduction Theory has yet to be verified and evidenced, in the absence of this..IT IS STILL A THEORY, like many others!
AND as a matter of fact DCI Redwood is not in charge of any 'investigation , in Portugal.
Now, what about other theories...has anyone in any Police force said they are not suspects?
For Dave: to make it clearer...
So, they are NOT suspects in the abduction theory, but we don't know about how the Police feel about their involvement of other theories!
if you want to believe that you are welcome to...but we saw last night how you have basic facts wrong...as far as I am concerned they are not suspects in maddie's disappearance..full stop
-
I think it is blatantly obvious the McCanns are not suspects. It doesn't matter what either police force say re the situation as the sceptics simply would not believe it.....an ostrich head in the sand mentality
aka democracy ?{)(**
-
aka democracy ?{)(**
of course...but don't complain when the McCanns seek to use the laws of the said democracy to protect their reputations
-
if you want to believe that you are welcome to...but we saw last night how you have basic facts wrong...as far as I am concerned they are not suspects in maddie's disappearance..full stop
Possibly but they were up to their necks in what followed! 8(0(*
Innocent is not a word I would use.
-
Possibly but they were up to their necks in what followed! 8(0(*
not sure what you mean by that
-
I don't know how this post was caught inside someone eles's but THIS is my section, apologies if this confused anyone.
Oh let me make this easier to those who wish to remove their heads from the sand.
The great believers tell us that The McCanns are not suspects...not suspects in what? what is being investigated? Well, as we are also told by the great believers SY and PJ are investigating the ABDUCTION THEORY. and it is only a theory!
So, let us deduce from this information that IN THE ABDUCTION THEORY, being investigated, the parents are not suspects.
The abduction Theory has yet to be verified and evidenced, in the absence of this..IT IS STILL A THEORY, like many others!
AND as a matter of fact DCI Redwood is not in charge of any 'investigation , in Portugal.
Now, what about other theories...has anyone in any Police force said they are not suspects?
For Dave: to make it clearer...
So, they are NOT suspects in the abduction theory, but we don't know about how the Police feel about their involvement of other theories!
Both the Met and the PT authorities have said that the McCanns are not suspects. I have already posted a PT statement to that effect.
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone interested in this case has missed DCI Redwood's statement that neither the McCanns nor their friends are either suspects or persons of interest in this case!
What could be more clear? And who could be deemed a more reliable source than the police officer in charge of the investigation?
Personally I have only read press articles regarding the PJ stating they were not suspects - and also that the McCanns have met the Oporto team. This is an extract from the Times article which also reported on the Efits - whether you regard it as 'reliable' or not is your prerogative.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
unquote
DCI Redwood did indeed say that the McCanns and their friends were not suspects or persons of interest. The remit of Operation Grange refers to a 'disappearance' and to an 'abduction', which were to be investigated 'as if they occurred in the UK'. In either case the first thing UK Police do is look at family and friends. Given DCI Redwood's declaration can we assume that has been done? We haven't been told, so we don't know. I don't know the remit of The PJ enquiry, but it seems to differ from that of Operation Grange, and the PJ are the lead team. The McCanns were brought in at the end of a meeting - see below;
At the request of The Policia Judiciara, AC Mark Rowley and DCI Andy Redwood attended a meeting with senior officers on 17 October, in Lisbon, to discuss this significant development, and for a comprehensive briefing on the new lines of enquiry which, at this point, are separate to the lines of enquiry being followed by the MPS. At the conclusion of that meeting, the group were joined by Kate and Gerry McCann who were briefed on the plans to apply to reopen the investigation.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Portuguese-authorities-reopen-investigation-into-Madeleine-McCann/1400020769305/1257246745756
As you don't provide a link to The Times article I can't comment on whether it's reliable or not, but given the track record of newspapers in this case I take all their stories with a large pinch of salt. I can't find any reports saying the PJ have declared that the McCann's are not suspects.
-
not sure what you mean by that
Remember Oakley and Metodo? You will be telling us all next that the McCanns had such little control over their agents that they were not aware what they were up to and what they through the Madeleine Fund were paying handsomely for.
Have they ever made a public apology to the people intimidated and threatened by these criminal thugs?
-
Both the Met and the PT authorities have said that the McCanns are not suspects. I have already posted a PT statement to that effect.
Don't know if this is the post to which you refer, Carana, I have another one but I thought the imprimatur on this one could be considered infallible by some.
"The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects."
DN 25 October 2013
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/pj-creates-new-team-to-investigate.html
-
DCI Redwood did indeed say that the McCanns and their friends were not suspects or persons of interest. The remit of Operation Grange refers to a 'disappearance' and to an 'abduction', which were to be investigated 'as if they occurred in the UK'. In either case the first thing UK Police do is look at family and friends. Given DCI Redwood's declaration can we assume that has been done? We haven't been told, so we don't know. I don't know the remit of The PJ enquiry, but it seems to differ from that of Operation Grange, and the PJ are the lead team. The McCanns were brought in at the end of a meeting - see below;
At the request of The Policia Judiciara, AC Mark Rowley and DCI Andy Redwood attended a meeting with senior officers on 17 October, in Lisbon, to discuss this significant development, and for a comprehensive briefing on the new lines of enquiry which, at this point, are separate to the lines of enquiry being followed by the MPS. At the conclusion of that meeting, the group were joined by Kate and Gerry McCann who were briefed on the plans to apply to reopen the investigation.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Portuguese-authorities-reopen-investigation-into-Madeleine-McCann/1400020769305/1257246745756
As you don't provide a link to The Times article I can't comment on whether it's reliable or not, but given the track record of newspapers in this case I take all their stories with a large pinch of salt. I can't find any reports saying the PJ have declared that the McCann's are not suspects.
IMO it's up to the individual to decide whether SY officers would simply take the McCanns' word for what they claimed had happened that night, or whether as professional policemen they would follow the normal policing procedure of first and foremost investigating the family/friends - in order to rule them in or out.
IMO common sense dictates that SY followed the normal procedure and as a result of their investigations they were able to rule the McCanns and their friends out of the enquiry.
I also believe SY credited the GBP with enough intelligence to work it out for themselves that the statement they made ruling the McCanns out of their enquiry could only have been made after SY had completely satisfied themselves that there was no reason for them to believe otherwise.
Anyone who actually believes SY simply took the McCanns word for what happened - is being extremely unrealistic IMO. That is not how professional police officers behave.
I agree that all newspaper reports should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
-
Don't know if this is the post to which you refer, Carana, I have another one but I thought the imprimatur on this one could be considered infallible by some.
"The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects."
DN 25 October 2013
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/pj-creates-new-team-to-investigate.html
Don't make the same mistake twice. Innocent until proven guilty.
-
Don't know if this is the post to which you refer, Carana, I have another one but I thought the imprimatur on this one could be considered infallible by some.
"The Judiciary Police (PJ) reopened the investigation concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and they guarantee that this time the parents of the girl who disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, days before her fourth birthday, on May 3, 2007, are not suspects."
DN 25 October 2013
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/pj-creates-new-team-to-investigate.html
Thanks, Brietta, that was one of them. There were others as well.
-
Thanks, Brietta, that was one of them. There were others as well.
Kate and Gerry McCann have been told for the first time by the Portuguese authorities that they are no longer suspects in their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011
-
Kate and Gerry McCann have been told for the first time by the Portuguese authorities that they are no longer suspects in their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011
I'm sorry Anna but that is a press release from a representative of the McCanns. Have you anything which has come directly from the PJ ?
-
Kate and Gerry McCann have been told for the first time by the Portuguese authorities that they are no longer suspects in their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-told-no-2592011
If it was in the Mirror it must be true.......................mustn't it? @)(++(*
The same article says;
Mr Alves said yesterday: “I will be applying for the McCanns to become assistentes in this case but don’t know yet when.
Did that happen I wonder? It would have allowed the McCanns access to the information gathered by the Portugese investigation. If it didn't happen they know the same as we do - nothing. The Portugese told the Met that any leaks would result in the investigation being closed again;
They clearly stated that if the MPS provide any briefings or information on the work they are undertaking on our behalf, or if reporters cause any disruption to their work in Portugal activity will cease until that problem dissipates.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Update-on-Madeleine-McCann-disappearance/1400024170613/1257246745756
-
If it was in the Mirror it must be true.......................mustn't it? @)(++(*
The same article says;
Mr Alves said yesterday: “I will be applying for the McCanns to become assistentes in this case but don’t know yet when.
Did that happen I wonder? It would have allowed the McCanns access to the information gathered by the Portugese investigation. If it didn't happen they know the same as we do - nothing. The Portugese told the Met that any leaks would result in the investigation being closed again;
They clearly stated that if the MPS provide any briefings or information on the work they are undertaking on our behalf, or if reporters cause any disruption to their work in Portugal activity will cease until that problem dissipates.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Update-on-Madeleine-McCann-disappearance/1400024170613/1257246745756
The old point arrives yet again.
Since it isn't known how Madeleine was removed from the apartment, how can potential suspects in a crime be declared as non-suspects ?
Let's hear a coherent reply to that.
-
The old point arrives yet again.
Since it isn't known how Madeleine was removed from the apartment, how can potential suspects in a crime be declared as non-suspects ?
Let's hear a coherent reply to that.
The same way as the Needhams are not suspects
-
If it was in the Mirror it must be true.......................mustn't it? @)(++(*
The same article says;
Mr Alves said yesterday: “I will be applying for the McCanns to become assistentes in this case but don’t know yet when.
Did that happen I wonder? It would have allowed the McCanns access to the information gathered by the Portugese investigation. If it didn't happen they know the same as we do - nothing. The Portugese told the Met that any leaks would result in the investigation being closed again;
They clearly stated that if the MPS provide any briefings or information on the work they are undertaking on our behalf, or if reporters cause any disruption to their work in Portugal activity will cease until that problem dissipates.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Update-on-Madeleine-McCann-disappearance/1400024170613/1257246745756
I was in fact answering a request for information by another member, who is probably not as fussy about which newspaper it came from. It is also stated, I believe in Joana Morais site.
I can not get the information from the horses mouth, but if that is what you demand, I suggest you, go and ask yourself.
Maybe this is more to your liking, but if not, I can do no more.
http://www.rtp.pt/noticias/index.php?article=690593&tm=7&layout=122&visual=61
-
The same way as the Needhams are not suspects
Try reading the post again.
It would really help. 8((()*/
-
Try reading the post again.
It would really help. 8((()*/
I answered the question
-
If it was in the Mirror it must be true.......................mustn't it? @)(++(*
The same article says;
Mr Alves said yesterday: “I will be applying for the McCanns to become assistentes in this case but don’t know yet when.
Did that happen I wonder? It would have allowed the McCanns access to the information gathered by the Portugese investigation. If it didn't happen they know the same as we do - nothing. The Portugese told the Met that any leaks would result in the investigation being closed again;
They clearly stated that if the MPS provide any briefings or information on the work they are undertaking on our behalf, or if reporters cause any disruption to their work in Portugal activity will cease until that problem dissipates.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Update-on-Madeleine-McCann-disappearance/1400024170613/1257246745756
Perhaps you should cut the sarcasm - given you are happy to reference that august organ when it suits.
-
I answered the question
Try again.
How can you eliminate potential suspects in a crime, when the nature of the crime is still unknown ?
-
Try again.
How can you eliminate potential suspects in a crime, when the nature of the crime is still unknown ?
Same as Ben Needham......Ben...type of crime unknown...family not suspects
-
Same as Ben Needham......Ben...type of crime unknown...family not suspects
That's not an answer dave.
That's diversion.
-
That's not an answer dave.
That's diversion.
Doesn't matter what you think...the question has been answerred
-
Doesn't matter what you think...the question has been answerred
Not with any logic dave.
Just an an attempted diversion.
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown.
Unknown crime means certain people have to be considered still as potential suspects unless of course someone(s) have told SY , to remove the mccanns as suspects.
-
Not with any logic dave.
Just an an attempted diversion.
The cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown.
Unknown crime means certain people have to be considered still as potential suspects unless of course someone(s) have told SY , to remove the mccanns as suspects.
everyone can see you are unable to understand simple logic....Ben Needham is crime unknown...his family are not considered suspects...point proven
-
everyone can see you are unable to understand simple logic....Ben Needham is crime unknown...his family are not considered suspects...point proven
You have proven nothing.
How do you know the mccanns haven't committed a crime dave in this case ?
Likewise, how would the police know if the mccanns haven't committed a crime, since they don't know how she disappeared ?
-
I'm sorry Anna but that is a press release from a representative of the McCanns. Have you anything which has come directly from the PJ ?
Unless Renascença, Diario de Noticias and RTP copy the Mirror on news emanating from Portugal:
Casal McCann está fora da lista de suspeitos
Ministério Público anunciou a reabertura do inquérito sobre o desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, depois de a Polícia Judiciária ter apresentado novos elementos.
O casal McCann não é apontado como suspeito, na nova linha de investigação que o Ministério Público decidiu abrir ao desaparecimento de Maddie, segundo apurou a Renascença.
A Polícia Judiciária diz ter indícios suficientes para reabrir o caso, o que entretanto já aconteceu por determinação da Procuradoria-Geral da República.
A nova linha de investigação proposta pela Judiciária ao Ministério Público não incluiu o casal McCann como suspeito. Essa tese, em tempos defendida pela Judiciária, parece estar abandonada à luz dos novos indícios recolhidos pela equipa que tem estado a reanalisar este caso desde Março de 2011.
Essa equipa de investigadores, baseada na Judiciária do Porto, apresentou recentemente novos indícios, que impõem a continuação da investigação, de tal forma que já preenchiam os requisitos previstos no Código Penal, para que o inquérito fosse reaberto.
A Judiciária comunicou esses factos à Procuradoria-Geral da Republica, que decidiu dar andamento ao processo, ordenando a reabertura da investigação na Comarca de Portimão.
Fonte policial autorizada garante à Renascença que este desenvolvimento em Portugal, nada tem a ver com as diligências da justiça britânica, tratando-se de mera coincidência temporal e onde não se podem sequer procurar outras semelhanças, por exemplo nas linhas de investigação.
Madeleine McCann desapareceu poucos dias antes de fazer quatro anos, a 3 de Maio de 2007, do quarto onde dormia juntamente com os dois irmãos gémeos, mais novos, num apartamento de um aldeamento turístico na Praia da Luz. Os pais jantavam com amigos num restaurante nas redondezas.
http://rr.sapo.pt/informacao_detalhe.aspx?fid=26&did=126889
Casal McCann fora da nova investigação ao desaparecimento da filha Maddie
O Ministério Público determinou a reabertura do inquérito sobre o desaparecimento da menina inglesa. A RTP sabe que os pais de Madie McCan não são considerados suspeitos na nova linha de investigação do caso. A decisão é uma consequência da proposta da Polícia Judiciária e da apresentação de novos indícios que justificam que a investigação prossiga. Em comunicado, a procuradoria acrescenta que foi requerido ao Juiz de Instrução Criminal o adiamento do acesso aos autos, por pra
http://videos.sapo.cv/shqztkNU6s5zGercOzYW
-
You have proven nothing.
How do you know the mccanns haven't committed a crime dave in this case ?
Likewise, how would the police know if the mccanns haven't committed a crime, since they don't know how she disappeared ?
What I know is that Redwood when head of the investigation declared they were not suspects...that's a fact and cannot be argued...how he did that...you would need to ask him..give him a ring
-
Unless Renascença, Diario de Noticias and RTP copy the Mirror on news emanating from Portugal:
Casal McCann está fora da lista de suspeitos
Ministério Público anunciou a reabertura do inquérito sobre o desaparecimento de Madeleine McCann, depois de a Polícia Judiciária ter apresentado novos elementos.
O casal McCann não é apontado como suspeito, na nova linha de investigação que o Ministério Público decidiu abrir ao desaparecimento de Maddie, segundo apurou a Renascença.
A Polícia Judiciária diz ter indícios suficientes para reabrir o caso, o que entretanto já aconteceu por determinação da Procuradoria-Geral da República.
A nova linha de investigação proposta pela Judiciária ao Ministério Público não incluiu o casal McCann como suspeito. Essa tese, em tempos defendida pela Judiciária, parece estar abandonada à luz dos novos indícios recolhidos pela equipa que tem estado a reanalisar este caso desde Março de 2011.
Essa equipa de investigadores, baseada na Judiciária do Porto, apresentou recentemente novos indícios, que impõem a continuação da investigação, de tal forma que já preenchiam os requisitos previstos no Código Penal, para que o inquérito fosse reaberto.
A Judiciária comunicou esses factos à Procuradoria-Geral da Republica, que decidiu dar andamento ao processo, ordenando a reabertura da investigação na Comarca de Portimão.
Fonte policial autorizada garante à Renascença que este desenvolvimento em Portugal, nada tem a ver com as diligências da justiça britânica, tratando-se de mera coincidência temporal e onde não se podem sequer procurar outras semelhanças, por exemplo nas linhas de investigação.
Madeleine McCann desapareceu poucos dias antes de fazer quatro anos, a 3 de Maio de 2007, do quarto onde dormia juntamente com os dois irmãos gémeos, mais novos, num apartamento de um aldeamento turístico na Praia da Luz. Os pais jantavam com amigos num restaurante nas redondezas.
http://rr.sapo.pt/informacao_detalhe.aspx?fid=26&did=126889
Casal McCann fora da nova investigação ao desaparecimento da filha Maddie
O Ministério Público determinou a reabertura do inquérito sobre o desaparecimento da menina inglesa. A RTP sabe que os pais de Madie McCan não são considerados suspeitos na nova linha de investigação do caso. A decisão é uma consequência da proposta da Polícia Judiciária e da apresentação de novos indícios que justificam que a investigação prossiga. Em comunicado, a procuradoria acrescenta que foi requerido ao Juiz de Instrução Criminal o adiamento do acesso aos autos, por pra
http://videos.sapo.cv/shqztkNU6s5zGercOzYW
even if the head of the PJ made a statement under oath...it would not be acceptable to the deluded...they would then demand to see the evidence that formed this conclusion...logical argument with these people is a complete waste of time
-
Perhaps you should cut the sarcasm - given you are happy to reference that august organ when it suits.
Great answer! Do you believe what the Mirror reports then? I used a quote, not because I believed it but because I was actually wondering if the McCanns became assistentes? That's the only reference I have seen to it.
-
Great answer! Do you believe what the Mirror reports then? I used a quote, not because I believed it but because I was actually wondering if the McCanns became assistentes? That's the only reference I have seen to it.
Have you heard the journalists mantra?
Make it sing
make it dance
make it up
-
Have you heard the journalists mantra?
Make it sing
make it dance
make it up
Now that truly personifies the abduction scenario.
-
Have you heard the journalists mantra?
Make it sing
make it dance
make it up
Except when it appears to be a leak from the PJ eh JP ? 8(0(*
-
Great answer! Do you believe what the Mirror reports then? I used a quote, not because I believed it but because I was actually wondering if the McCanns became assistentes? That's the only reference I have seen to it.
Yes Gu, I wondered about that also. I guess they were not.
-
Great answer! Do you believe what the Mirror reports then? I used a quote, not because I believed it but because I was actually wondering if the McCanns became assistentes? That's the only reference I have seen to it.
The report by the Mirror is correct. It was applied for in August 2007, not objected to, as it was their right. Then turned down in September 2007, because they were made Arguido's. You should read the files.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_ASSISTENTE.htm
-
Great answer! Do you believe what the Mirror reports then? I used a quote, not because I believed it but because I was actually wondering if the McCanns became assistentes? That's the only reference I have seen to it.
You might like to read some members discussing the Assistente application on here, maybe not. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2787.msg95293#msg95293
I think(but not sure) that it may have been refused, due to Madeleine being a ward of court. She was not a ward of court when they were made(briefly) assistente 2007, which was removed due their Arquido status.
-
You might like to read some members discussing the Assistente application on here, maybe not. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2787.msg95293#msg95293 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2787.msg95293#msg95293)
I think(but not sure) that it may have been refused, due to Madeleine being a ward of court. She was not a ward of court when they were made(briefly) assistente 2007, which was removed due their Arquido status.
From the Public Ministry
Conclusion 29-08-2007
Within the scope of the current investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a British citizen, born on the 12-05-2003 from a bedroom in the OC resort where she was staying with her family, made up of her parents Gerald McCann and Kate Healy and her twin siblings.
They are now requesting to be constitutes as Assistentes.
That is how the case is presented to the judge, bearing in mind that the current state of the case, it is repeated that they are the parents and have a legitimate right (article 68 no. 1), they have each paid the taxes and hired a lawyer, I do not have any objection to the constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as assistentes in the case.
Signed
Magalhaes e Menezes
Full text of previous post is in Vol XProcessos Vol XPages 2624 - 2625
Conclusion 11-09-2007
In compliance with the search warrants determined in folios 2082/2083, two diaries and a note book were apprehended from the McCann family residence, which were in the couple's bedroom wardrobe, in accordance with search warrant folio 2097, which were photocopied and the original handed back according to delivery note 2125.
The photocopies may contain important elements for discovering the truth.Therefore they are admitted to the process.
1. I suggest the apprehension is validated and that the translation of the photocopies is carried out as well as the eventual collection of elements to bring to the process if they are necessary to the investigation.
2. As a result of the terms of folios 2553 and 2565, those making the request on folio 2510, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy were in the meantime constituted as arguidos because there was an alteration in their position in the process, incompatible with their quality of assistentes, due to which we now oppose their intervention as such, which we now make clear.
Signed
Public Prosecuto
rDr Jose Magalhaes e Menezes
-
From the Public Ministry
Conclusion 29-08-2007
Within the scope of the current investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a British citizen, born on the 12-05-2003 from a bedroom in the OC resort where she was staying with her family, made up of her parents Gerald McCann and Kate Healy and her twin siblings.
They are now requesting to be constitutes as Assistentes.
That is how the case is presented to the judge, bearing in mind that the current state of the case, it is repeated that they are the parents and have a legitimate right (article 68 no. 1), they have each paid the taxes and hired a lawyer, I do not have any objection to the constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as assistentes in the case.
Signed
Magalhaes e Menezes
Full text of previous post is in Vol XProcessos Vol XPages 2624 - 2625
Conclusion 11-09-2007
In compliance with the search warrants determined in folios 2082/2083, two diaries and a note book were apprehended from the McCann family residence, which were in the couple's bedroom wardrobe, in accordance with search warrant folio 2097, which were photocopied and the original handed back according to delivery note 2125.
The photocopies may contain important elements for discovering the truth.Therefore they are admitted to the process.
1. I suggest the apprehension is validated and that the translation of the photocopies is carried out as well as the eventual collection of elements to bring to the process if they are necessary to the investigation.
2. As a result of the terms of folios 2553 and 2565, those making the request on folio 2510, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy were in the meantime constituted as arguidos because there was an alteration in their position in the process, incompatible with their quality of assistentes, due to which we now oppose their intervention as such, which we now make clear.
Signed
Public Prosecuto
rDr Jose Magalhaes e Menezes
Thanks DCI. So do you think the application made in 2013 for assistente status, was accepted again?
I guess it would make sense if it was, as OG keep them updated, despite the secrecy laws, which means that they are included in the investigations. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
-
Thanks DCI. So do you think the application made in 2013 for assistente status, was accepted again?
I guess it would make sense if it was, as OG keep them updated, despite the secrecy laws, which means that they are included in the investigations. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
May I ask who said OG are keeping the McCanns updated? i seem to have missed where that fact is confirmed. Thanks in anticipation.
-
May I ask who said OG are keeping the McCanns updated? i seem to have missed where that fact is confirmed. Thanks in anticipation.
“We are in regular contact with [her parents] Kate and Gerry McCann and they are kept fully updated on the progress of our work. We also continue to work closely with the Portuguese police and are actively considering our next steps.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-to-fund-new-met-operation-into-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-8660084.html
-
“We are in regular contact with [her parents] Kate and Gerry McCann and they are kept fully updated on the progress of our work. We also continue to work closely with the Portuguese police and are actively considering our next steps.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-office-to-fund-new-met-operation-into-madeleine-mccann-disappearance-8660084.html
The Drs McCann have been kept in the loop by both task forces.
As civilians I am quite sure there will be aspects of the case to which they will not be privy; but there is no doubt they are being kept updated with developments and I think that tells us all we need to know about what their status is as far as the PJ and SY are concerned.
**snip
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who is leading the Scotland Yard team, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, and Madeleine's parents met officers in Lisbon last week to be briefed on the Portuguese case.
The new Portuguese lines of inquiry are separate to those being chased by the Met.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/24/missing-madeleine-mccann-investigation-reopened-portuguese-police
-
The Drs McCann have been kept in the loop by both task forces.
As civilians I am quite sure there will be aspects of the case to which they will not be privy; but there is no doubt they are being kept updated with developments and I think that tells us all we need to know about what their status is as far as the PJ and SY are concerned.
**snip
Detective Chief Inspector Redwood, who is leading the Scotland Yard team, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, and Madeleine's parents met officers in Lisbon last week to be briefed on the Portuguese case.
The new Portuguese lines of inquiry are separate to those being chased by the Met.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/24/missing-madeleine-mccann-investigation-reopened-portuguese-police
The Guardian makes it sound as if the PJ briefed both the Met and the McCanns. but they didn't. SY may have told the McCanns what was said later, but there is nothing I can find to say the PJ are updating the McCanns on their investigation;
At the request of The Policia Judiciara, AC Mark Rowley and DCI Andy Redwood attended a meeting with senior officers on 17 October, in Lisbon, to discuss this significant development, and for a comprehensive briefing on the new lines of enquiry which, at this point, are separate to the lines of enquiry being followed by the MPS. At the conclusion of that meeting, the group were joined by Kate and Gerry McCann who were briefed on the plans to apply to reopen the investigation.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Portuguese-authorities-reopen-investigation-into-Madeleine-McCann/1400020769305/1257246745756
-
The Guardian makes it sound as if the PJ briefed both the Met and the McCanns. but they didn't. SY may have told the McCanns what was said later, but there is nothing I can find to say the PJ are updating the McCanns on their investigation;
At the request of The Policia Judiciara, AC Mark Rowley and DCI Andy Redwood attended a meeting with senior officers on 17 October, in Lisbon, to discuss this significant development, and for a comprehensive briefing on the new lines of enquiry which, at this point, are separate to the lines of enquiry being followed by the MPS. At the conclusion of that meeting, the group were joined by Kate and Gerry McCann who were briefed on the plans to apply to reopen the investigation.
http://content.met.police.uk/News/Portuguese-authorities-reopen-investigation-into-Madeleine-McCann/1400020769305/1257246745756
The re-opened British investigation into Madeleine McCann's case was already in progress.
The Portuguese investigation was not at that stage.
Further investigation by the Porto PJ team had found justification to follow suit and a meeting was held for discussion with their British counterparts prior to their re-opening of Madeleine's case in Portugal.
After their joint discussion on operational matters - to which no civilians should or would be privy - Dr Kate and Dr Gerry McCann were invited into that joint PJ/SY meeting to be informed of proceedings.
I think the clue is in the wording - "the group were joined".
-
The re-opened British investigation into Madeleine McCann's case was already in progress.
The Portuguese investigation was not at that stage.
Further investigation by the Porto PJ team had found justification to follow suit and a meeting was held for discussion with their British counterparts prior to their re-opening of Madeleine's case in Portugal.
After their joint discussion on operational matters - to which no civilians should or would be privy - Dr Kate and Dr Gerry McCann were invited into that joint PJ/SY meeting to be informed of proceedings.
I think the clue is in the wording - "the group were joined".
the group were joined by Kate and Gerry McCann who were briefed on the plans to apply to reopen the investigation.
-
the group were joined by Kate and Gerry McCann who were briefed on the plans to apply to reopen the investigation.
Lol, they were not invited to the 'bezzy friends meeting' last week either...Oh but at least it is ok because they are ..not guilty of anything.
-
Lol, they were not invited to the 'bezzy friends meeting' last week either...Oh but at least it is ok because they are ..not guilty of anything.
Not guilty but suspected?
When the Portugese authorities archived their investigation they said the McCanns lost the chance to prove their innocence when their friends refused to return to PdL for a reconstruction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
So, the PJ had suspicions about the parents but no evidence was found to prove their guilt or anyone else's guilt so the process was archived.
The reconstruction may have allowed the McCanns to prove to the PJ that they were innocent, but it didn't happen because their friends refused to take part. The McCanns agreed to take part but seemed happy to accept the refusal by their friends. So, no proof that they were guilty and no proof that they were innocent as far as the PJ were concerned.
I have seen no statement from the PJ as to the remit of their reopened enquiry. I have seen no statement from them saying whether their review found anything to change the status of the McCanns as it stood when the case was archived.
Operation Grange, according to DCI Redwood in 2013 was not regarding the McCanns as suspects or persons of interest. Is that still the case? We don't know as I can't find any later statement on the matter from OG.
Crimewatch could have tested the windows of opportunity between checks but only showed the people who went into the apartment, thereby leaving approximately 30 minutes between Matthew Oldfield's check and Kate McCann's at 10pm. This, along with the elimination (probable, not certain) of Tannerman allowed them to promote Smithman as the perpetrator. He didn't have 30 minutes though.
Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien passed the apartment during that 30 minutes. Unless a watching abductor/burglar knew they were partners they wouldn't have known that Jane was going to stay in her apartment; she didn't during her previous check, she came back out and returned to the Tapas Bar. It was Russell O'Brien who came out of the apartment instead this time between 9.50-9.55pm. We can assume that Jane passed between 9.45-9.50pm - ish then.
Matthew Oldfield and Russell O'Brien left the Tapas at 9.30pm and Matthew checked his child, then went to see Russell, then went round and checked G5A so he probably returned to the Tapas at 9.35-9-40pm. This leaves the windows of opportunity to be between 9.35pm and 9.45pm (ten minutes) or 9.50pm and 10,00pm (ten minutes).
If it was between 9,50pm and 10pm he still had to get to the place where the Smiths are supposed to have seen him at 10pm. Would a watching intruder risk making his move after MO's return to the Tapas? RO'B could have emerged from his apartment at any moment.
The group's statements leave very little time for an abductor to do anything unless they had knowledge of the apartment and knew which child they wanted and where she was sleeping. There would have been little time to sedate her and the twins also.
If the children weren't sedated an abductor was risking Madeleine waking up when he picked her up and all the children waking if he raised the shutters and opened the window. Also unsedated twins should have woken up when the bedroom was being searched around them or when they were moved out of the apartment I would have thought.
Raising the shutters and opening the window was a high risk thing to do also given the amount of to-ing and fro-ing. Matthew Oldfield did a listening check at the McCann's window at 9pm, so anyone raising the shutters from inside could have found themselves face to face with him or another checker. Had they raised them from the outside they could have been confronted by three screaming children.
If the intruder entered with a key, why open the shutters/window (high risk of waking children, being seen by someone listening at window or passing)
Ditto if intruder used the patio door. If a burglary, why not just run if a child woke up? If the burglar panicked and killed the child why take her with him and then walk the streets with her?
Most of the above questions arise because of the tight timeline. Was the frequency of the checks exaggerated? If so, why would the group do that? To save themselves from accusations of neglect? If they stuck to their timeline because they were afraid of being accused of neglect did that hamper the investigation? If it did should we assume that protecting themselves from accusations of neglect was more important than catching the abductor and finding a missing child?
All of the above timings are from the statements in the PJ files. The conclusions arising are all my opinion only.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm
-
Unfortunately once the genie is out of the bottle it is impossible to put it back in.
The pejorative press reports some of which are described by Lord Leveson as "complete piffle" and "tittle tattle" http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/dec/21/daily-express-obsessed-madeleine-mccann are still believed and remain the source of much internet discussion.
For example the Express story ... also widely reported in MSM in Portugal and here ... regarding the 'tormented priest' who figures in so many 'doubters' lexicon' was described by Leveson as " ... it's all fluff, there's nothing to it".
I think Madeleine McCann features as a footnote, if she features at all, in the consciousness of some of those allegedly 'obsessed' with the McCann case.
There has been a wholesale transference of false information described by Lord Levenson as "piffle and tittle tattle" into 'evidence' which has kept the pot boiling and encouraged obsession which in some cases must be considered an unhealthy one.
-
@G-Unit "The group's statements leave very little time for an abductor to do anything unless they had knowledge of the apartment and knew which child they wanted and where she was sleeping. There would have been little time to sedate her and the twins also."
Given that I have been working on how a planned abduction might work, and the reasons it might not, over at ShiningInLuz, I quite like this.
However,
a planned abductor (not a random one) needed to know which child he wanted (unless he wasn't fussy)
he needed to know she was in 5A (not 4G, 5H, 5B, 5D, 606, 603 or presumably numerous other apartments with children)
he needed to know the children were unguarded. Or, he might have hoped for this, or preferred this, but in the end he might not have cared
he needed an entry method to 5A. Given there was no forced entry, he needed a key, or he needed to have worked out that the patio doors were unlocked.
What he did not need was
where the child was sleeping, as in which room. Apartment 5A is small, only 2 bedrooms. You look in one, you look in the other, simple.
time to sedate? Let me see. The twins did not wake up. Tannerman's child did not wake up. Smithman's child did not wake up. The Lisbon forensic team tried for obvious sedatives and found none.
-
Heri gives an excellent demonstration of the shutter being raised in less than a minute ... and a pillow which I think represents a tired inquisitive child being lifted through.
Whether one agrees with his hypothesis or not, it shows the speed with which it could have been accomplished.
Published on Apr 1, 2013
*** espacioexterior.blogspot.com ***
Madeleine McCann abducted in less than a minute? (a) ... ¿Madeleine McCann secuestrada en menos de un minuto? (a) ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzpniKAWvUI
On a recent visit to Praia da Luz he also discovered security additions to one of the apartments which seemed to fit in with how entry was gained to the flats when they were burgled.
**snip
About Block 5, I was interested in a Scotland Yard statement of October 2013: "There was a fourfold increase in burglaries in the resort peaking in April 2007. Two of the burglaries in April were in Block 5 where Madeleine disappeared from. In both these burglaries entry was via a window. "
I had thought that access through a window in one of these cases would be not easy, because of the windows were difficult to reach from the front or from the back of the apartment. But my doubts were cleared when I see the iron bars put in the front ones!
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@G-Unit "The group's statements leave very little time for an abductor to do anything unless they had knowledge of the apartment and knew which child they wanted and where she was sleeping. There would have been little time to sedate her and the twins also."
Given that I have been working on how a planned abduction might work, and the reasons it might not, over at ShiningInLuz, I quite like this.
However,
a planned abductor (not a random one) needed to know which child he wanted (unless he wasn't fussy)
he needed to know she was in 5A (not 4G, 5H, 5B, 5D, 606, 603 or presumably numerous other apartments with children)
he needed to know the children were unguarded. Or, he might have hoped for this, or preferred this, but in the end he might not have cared
he needed an entry method to 5A. Given there was no forced entry, he needed a key, or he needed to have worked out that the patio doors were unlocked.
What he did not need was
where the child was sleeping, as in which room. Apartment 5A is small, only 2 bedrooms. You look in one, you look in the other, simple.
time to sedate? Let me see. The twins did not wake up. Tannerman's child did not wake up. Smithman's child did not wake up. The Lisbon forensic team tried for obvious sedatives and found none.
No key needed, the main door was unlocked;
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent......
When the parents went out;
Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Why, before taking the child he wanted, did he risk raising the noisy shutters? To do so he had to navigate a dark bedroom.
He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
He didn't know the child wouldn't wake up so risky, because a child waking up in her father's arms is one thing. Waking up in a strangers arms is another. We have no proof that either Tannerman or Smithman existed.
I don't think anyone was tested for sedation, were they?
-
No key needed, the main door was unlocked;
After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent......
When the parents went out;
Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Why, before taking the child he wanted, did he risk raising the noisy shutters? To do so he had to navigate a dark bedroom.
He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
He didn't know the child wouldn't wake up so risky, because a child waking up in her father's arms is one thing. Waking up in a strangers arms is another. We have no proof that either Tannerman or Smithman existed.
I don't think anyone was tested for sedation, were they?
I don't think they were tested for sedation. I think the police found this to be strange, the children sleeping through all the noise and there was a lot of commotion! especially as the children were waking previous nights- why sleep through this one night? Although it has to be said kids sleeping patterns can be erratic. I think it was Fiona who mentioned that Kate was checking the twins for breathing.
I think even a planned abduction would have to take account that there was checks every 30 mins- I suspect this is not true and the checks were not timed,then the abductor would be taking a chance that he would not be disturbed by a 'inpromptu check'.
It all comes down
to the bloody time line. which one we don't know!
The levison was about hacking McCanns were not hacked why were they even there!