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: Carana on February 22, 2015, 04:34:49 PM
-
The tabloids are well known for miking any story to saturation point... and beyond.
Conspiracy theories over Diana's death in the Express seem to have only subsided when they found the next potential national obsession: Madeleine McCann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Express
If anonymous blogs and forums had existed in the 80s - early 90s, there would have been innumerable ones over Diana and Charles, with people who never knew Diana and are unlikely to ever know Charles screaming into the void of the Internet.
-
The tabloids are well known for miking any story to saturation point... and beyond.
Conspiracy theories over Diana's death in the Express seem to have only subsided when they found the next potential national obsession: Madeleine McCann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Express
If anonymous blogs and forums had existed in the 80s - early 90s, there would have been innumerable ones over Diana and Charles, with people who never knew Diana and are unlikely to ever know Charles screaming into the void of the Internet.
There's the answer for Alfred then. There's little discussion about Diana now, and not even much about David Kelly any longer. Ditto with Jill Dando, when that was another case that hit the roof of national hysteria. Many of those discussing this case will move on when there's another equivalent case. Many still won't however because Diana, Dando and Kelly weren't young children and just as Madeleine being young, white and blonde helped generate the hysteria in May 2007 it will also prolong case discussion. It's Madeleine herself who is the answer to Alfred's question.
-
There's the answer for Alfred then. There's little discussion about Diana now, and not even much about David Kelly any longer. Ditto with Jill Dando, when that was another case that hit the roof of national hysteria. Many of those discussing this case will move on when there's another equivalent case. Many still won't however because Diana, Dando and Kelly weren't young children and just as Madeleine being young, white and blonde helped generate the hysteria in May 2007 it will also prolong case discussion. It's Madeleine herself who is the answer to Alfred's question.
A difference between Diana, Jill Dando and Kelly being that Madeleine's fate is unknown. The others have, sadly passed away.
However slim the possibility, Madeleine might still be alive somewhere, or might have still been for some time if people had stopped assuming that she was dead, that her parents had known about it all along and that therefore there was no point in remaining vigilant.
-
A difference between Diana, Jill Dando and Kelly being that Madeleine's fate is unknown. The others have, sadly passed away.
However slim the possibility, Madeleine might still be alive somewhere, or might have still been for some time if people had stopped assuming that she was dead, that her parents had known about it all along and that therefore there was no point in remaining vigilant.
Unfortunately people assume the worst anyway in missing child cases. There's a MWT video about Soham in which a policeman says he assumed it within days - that's just human nature, and not something unusual in Madeleine's case.
Diana, Kelly and Dando are gone but the reasons why are still very much in doubt. That's why I was comparing them to this case - and all 3 reached similar levels of national emotion as May 2007. But discussion in all three is minimal now.
-
Unfortunately people assume the worst anyway in missing child cases. There's a MWT video about Soham in which a policeman says he assumed it within days - that's just human nature, and not something unusual in Madeleine's case.
Diana, Kelly and Dando are gone but the reasons why are still very much in doubt. That's why I was comparing them to this case - and all 3 reached similar levels of national emotion as May 2007. But discussion in all three is minimal now.
Yes, I understand that.
What I find disturbing, however, is that people have been led to assume that this little girl is definitely dead, and have jumped a step ahead to inventing conspiracy theories and fighting for premium places beside the scaffolding when there is no credible evidence that she is.
Other children have been found alive, some many years later.
I wouldn't give up if I had known and loved her.
If I were a missing person, the worst thing must be that utter despair that everyone assumes that I'm dead and no one is trying to rescue me any more.
-
Yes, I understand that.
What I find disturbing, however, is that people have been led to assume that this little girl is definitely dead, and have jumped a step ahead to inventing conspiracy theories and fighting for premium places beside the scaffolding when there is no credible evidence that she is.
Other children have been found alive, some many years later.
I wouldn't give up if I had known and loved her.
If I were a missing person, the worst thing must be that utter despair that everyone assumes that I'm dead and no one is trying to rescue me any more.
Her parents have lead me to believe that.
Still, if I saw her in the street you think I wouldn't call the police?
I'd want some reward money for it though, I don't do nutink for free.
-
Yes, I understand that.
What I find disturbing, however, is that people have been led to assume that this little girl is definitely dead, and have jumped a step ahead to inventing conspiracy theories and fighting for premium places beside the scaffolding when there is no credible evidence that she is.
Other children have been found alive, some many years later.
I wouldn't give up if I had known and loved her.
If I were a missing person, the worst thing must be that utter despair that everyone assumes that I'm dead and no one is trying to rescue me any more.
For a start, any three-year-old abducted and placed into another household nearly eight years ago will have few memories of her former life. Secondly, the search is for a culprit these days, Madeleine comes a poor second unfortunately.
-
Yes, I understand that.
What I find disturbing, however, is that people have been led to assume that this little girl is definitely dead, and have jumped a step ahead to inventing conspiracy theories and fighting for premium places beside the scaffolding when there is no credible evidence that she is.
Other children have been found alive, some many years later.
I wouldn't give up if I had known and loved her.
If I were a missing person, the worst thing must be that utter despair that everyone assumes that I'm dead and no one is trying to rescue me any more.
Police might assume the worst but that doesn't mean they stop looking for the perpetrator does it - especially in missing child cases they want to find the evidence to convict those who were responsible.
And members of the public wouldn't ignore something they saw or heard just because they might have strong opinion about Madeleine's case - if they saw or heard something they'd report it because it could be any child. I think the idea they'd dismiss it just because they thought it couldn't possibly be Madeleine is absurd (they'd know it could be anyone!).
-
Clearly the priority for Scotland Yard is to apprehend someone in order to justify the millions they have spent on this case.
-
are they not waiting for the latest rogatories to be processed
-
Yes, I understand that.
What I find disturbing, however, is that people have been led to assume that this little girl is definitely dead, and have jumped a step ahead to inventing conspiracy theories and fighting for premium places beside the scaffolding when there is no credible evidence that she is.
Other children have been found alive, some many years later.
I wouldn't give up if I had known and loved her.
If I were a missing person, the worst thing must be that utter despair that everyone assumes that I'm dead and no one is trying to rescue me any more.
Michelle Knight one of Ariel Castro's kidnap victims in Cleveland remains estranged from her family, one reason being that they gave up on her.
Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus whose parents never gave up on them (and whose advice to the relatives of missing people is to "never give up hope") have been comforted by the knowledge they were being looked for during their long incarceration.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358645/Cleveland-kidnapping-victims-Amanda-Berry-Gina-DeJesus-Michelle-Knight-appear-video-time.html
-
Police might assume the worst but that doesn't mean they stop looking for the perpetrator does it - especially in missing child cases they want to find the evidence to convict those who were responsible.
And members of the public wouldn't ignore something they saw or heard just because they might have strong opinion about Madeleine's case - if they saw or heard something they'd report it because it could be any child. I think the idea they'd dismiss it just because they thought it couldn't possibly be Madeleine is absurd (they'd know it could be anyone!).
That is so true Lyall. I would never give up hope, and don't expect the parents to say anything other than that, but the poilce can't follow every single lead it has to be established if it is worth following. IMO
-
That is so true Lyall. I would never give up hope, and don't expect the parents to say anything other than that, but the poilce can't follow every single lead it has to be established if it is worth following. IMO
How would the police establish whether or not a lead is worth following if they do not investigate it?
Ricardo Paiva's solution of having a file marked "Not Relevant to the Inquiry" could possibly be classed as a dereliction of duty rather than proper policing ... then of course the fact he believed Madeleine was dead meant he didn't see the point.
-
The saturation coverage in the media at the time and the huge reward offered by the News of the World didn't bring any information in. The investigation in Portugal didn't find any clue as to Madeleine's whereabouts. The SY investigation hasn't, as far as we know, found any sign of where a living child might be. The amount of digging they did suggests that they were looking for a body.
I would be very surprised (but also very pleased) if she was ever found alive.
-
How would the police establish whether or not a lead is worth following if they do not investigate it?
Ricardo Paiva's solution of having a file marked "Not Relevant to the Inquiry" could possibly be classed as a dereliction of duty rather than proper policing ... then of course the fact he believed Madeleine was dead meant he didn't see the point.
Unless of course those leads had been investigated and deemed 'Not Relevant to the Inquiry'. What do you think ? Any reason to believe they weren't ?
Anyway it would appear the PJ team were right as SY don't seem to be following up any of those 'leads', do they ?
-
The saturation coverage in the media at the time and the huge reward offered by the News of the World didn't bring any information in. The investigation in Portugal didn't find any clue as to Madeleine's whereabouts. The SY investigation hasn't, as far as we know, found any sign of where a living child might be. The amount of digging they did suggests that they were looking for a body.
I would be very surprised (but also very pleased) if she was ever found alive.
In the absence of any indicators to death ... a woof and a drop of foreign blood doesn't cut the mustard ... the assumption must be that a living child should have been looked for.
We know from Goncalo Amaral's book and subsequent celebrity television appearances etc that the investigation was concentrated on the Drs' McCann guilt from the 4th of May ... who on earth asks to see a priest under any other circumstance?? ... so who was looking for a living Madeleine McCann if not the PJ?
Explains why her parents had to become pro-active in looking for her ... they did believe she was alive at that time.
-
In the absence of any indicators to death ... a woof and a drop of foreign blood doesn't cut the mustard ... the assumption must be that a living child should have been looked for.
We know from Goncalo Amaral's book and subsequent celebrity television appearances etc that the investigation was concentrated on the Drs' McCann guilt from the 4th of May ... who on earth asks to see a priest under any other circumstance?? ... so who was looking for a living Madeleine McCann if not the PJ?
Explains why her parents had to become pro-active in looking for her ... they did believe she was alive at that time.
Gerry claims he and his wife asked for the cadaver dogs to be brought in. Why would he do that if he firmly believed Madeleine was alive ? Or indeed request that Daniel Krugel come to PDL.
-
Gerry claims he and his wife asked for the cadaver dogs to be brought in. Why would he do that if he firmly believed Madeleine was alive ? Or indeed request that Daniel Krugel come to PDL.
Do you have a source about Gerry's claim? something else i seem to have missed lol.
-
Do you have a source about Gerry's claim? something else i seem to have missed lol.
The claim came from Gerry himself in an interview I believe.
-
Gerry claims he and his wife asked for the cadaver dogs to be brought in. Why would he do that if he firmly believed Madeleine was alive ? Or indeed request that Daniel Krugel come to PDL.
Gerry hopes madeleine may still be alive......he is intelligent enough to realise that she may not be
-
Gerry hopes madeleine may still be alive......he is intelligent enough to realise that she may not be
Tis a true shame they didn't show 'intelligence' in the first place.
-
The claim came from Gerry himself in an interview I believe.
I can't take seriously a post which claims as fact something which is based only on the poster's 'belief' that it's a fact.
-
Gerry hopes madeleine may still be alive......he is intelligent enough to realise that she may not be
There certainly was much more of a chance for Madeleine to be recovered alive in 2007.
Where this absolute rubbish emanates from that Danie Krugel equated with the acknowledgement of death is an absolute mystery.
He came over apparently at his own expense and it was hoped his visit would result in locating a living child not a dead one.
Given the marketing ... if you were the desperate parent of a missing child would you not have been anxious to give this man a try?
New technology finds missing persons
SABC News, December 08, 2004
The developers of a new system says their technology can track missing people anywhere in the country, and beyond, by using a strand of hair. The equipment and system used is being kept top secret in Bloemfontein, but parents of children that were found say it really works.
The inventors say they only need DNA to find a missing person. The sample, technology and an advanced satellite system is enough to ensure a successful search.
Pierre Honiball, whose missing 14 year old son was found after 2 days, says the system works. “Undoubtedly there is a way to find somebody with whatever he uses and I can tell you this is the truth he found Andre within 25 minutes.” Jos Chadinha's frantic search for his missing daughter ended 90 minutes after providing strands of her hair. “He found her ... and he found her simply using the instruments.”
The method is still under wraps. Danie Krugel, a spokesman, says more needs to be done before the system is made public: “We are still in the experimental phase, the final stages of the experimental phase; we are not ready now to put equipment into the market place, but it came so quickly, the successes, that it caught us off guard.”
Experts are skeptical, but it's too early to prove or disprove. The group is in the process of setting up a web page and a call centre to provide more information on their product.
http://www.daniekrugelfacts.com/
-
There certainly was much more of a chance for Madeleine to be recovered alive in 2007.
Where this absolute rubbish emanates from that Danie Krugel equated with the acknowledgement of death is an absolute mystery.
He came over apparently at his own expense and it was hoped his visit would result in locating a living child not a dead one.
Given the marketing ... if you were the desperate parent of a missing child would you not have been anxious to give this man a try?
New technology finds missing persons
SABC News, December 08, 2004
The developers of a new system says their technology can track missing people anywhere in the country, and beyond, by using a strand of hair. The equipment and system used is being kept top secret in Bloemfontein, but parents of children that were found say it really works.
The inventors say they only need DNA to find a missing person. The sample, technology and an advanced satellite system is enough to ensure a successful search.
Pierre Honiball, whose missing 14 year old son was found after 2 days, says the system works. “Undoubtedly there is a way to find somebody with whatever he uses and I can tell you this is the truth he found Andre within 25 minutes.” Jos Chadinha's frantic search for his missing daughter ended 90 minutes after providing strands of her hair. “He found her ... and he found her simply using the instruments.”
The method is still under wraps. Danie Krugel, a spokesman, says more needs to be done before the system is made public: “We are still in the experimental phase, the final stages of the experimental phase; we are not ready now to put equipment into the market place, but it came so quickly, the successes, that it caught us off guard.”
Experts are skeptical, but it's too early to prove or disprove. The group is in the process of setting up a web page and a call centre to provide more information on their product.
http://www.daniekrugelfacts.com/
Mark Harrison from the National Police Improvement Agency who was sent to assist the PJ at their request had a
poor opinion of Kruger;
Of most concern is the poor quality of his report which merely shows a google earth image of an area to the east of Praia Da Luz and includes open smb land, beach and sea. As Krugel was not prepared to allow the device to be viewed or provide any specification data of readings or equipment and the fact that no known device currently exists commercially or academically then I can only conclude that the information he has provided is likely to be of low value
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Danie_Krugel.htm
-
I can't take seriously a post which claims as fact something which is based only on the poster's 'belief' that it's a fact.
Then don't take it seriously, I have no problem with that. It was however discussed on this very forum at length.
Of course Mark Harrison sought the assistance of Martin Grime and his dogs, not the couple McCann.
-
Then don't take it seriously, I have no problem with that. It was however discussed on this very forum at length.
Of course Mark Harrison sought the assistance of Martin Grime and his dogs, not the couple McCann.
Of course he did. Well, he recommended their use;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The other statement is your opinion only unless you can provide a link to back it up.
-
Mark Harrison from the National Police Improvement Agency who was sent to assist the PJ at their request had a
poor opinion of Kruger;
Of most concern is the poor quality of his report which merely shows a google earth image of an area to the east of Praia Da Luz and includes open smb land, beach and sea. As Krugel was not prepared to allow the device to be viewed or provide any specification data of readings or equipment and the fact that no known device currently exists commercially or academically then I can only conclude that the information he has provided is likely to be of low value
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Danie_Krugel.htm
The one thing agreed by all concerned was a poor opinion of Krugel.
I still can't make up my mind if he is a charlatan or sincere in the effectiveness of his device ... maybe he is just another clairvoyant who hit upon 'science' to help him along. Who knows?
But what I do know from his website and the information he puts out is that the Drs McCann did not want his assistance in finding Madeleine's body ... they wanted him to search for a living child who could be recovered.
To suggest otherwise is entirely wrong ... the Drs McCann wanted Krugel brought in to do what it said in his PR material ... and that was to search for and find a missing child.
-
If you have a different opinion please feel free to make it known and perhaps provide a cite to back it up.
I have provided a cite on Danni Krugel and the service he was advertising which was finding missing children; if you know better ... bring it on!
-
http://01universe.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/south-african-crank-of-week-danie.html (http://01universe.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/south-african-crank-of-week-danie.html)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danie_Krugel (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danie_Krugel)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dont-trust-the-bodyfinder-511803 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dont-trust-the-bodyfinder-511803)
https://moonflake.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/danie-krugel-first-contact/ (https://moonflake.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/danie-krugel-first-contact/)
http://www.technovia.co.uk/2007/10/observer-retracts-danie-krugel-story.html (http://www.technovia.co.uk/2007/10/observer-retracts-danie-krugel-story.html)
Now about that bridge?
-
Of course he did. Well, he recommended their use;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
The other statement is your opinion only unless you can provide a link to back it up.
Not the interview I was thinking of but this will suffice.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
-
Not the interview I was thinking of but this will suffice.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
You are confused between cadaver and sniffer dogs
-
Not the interview I was thinking of but this will suffice.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
Give me one good reason why guilty people would ask for sniffer dogs to be brought in to investigate their crimes.
-
Give me one good reason why guilty people would ask for sniffer dogs to be brought in to investigate their crimes.
In my opinion had they been guilty they would have packed their bags after a decent interval and returned to obscurity in England where Madeleine would soon have been replaced in the news by the next tragedy.
It is solely her parents resolve, tenacity and belief that she is alive and needs to be looked for that has driven the investigation into her disappearance to be reopened; a truly strange behaviour if trying to conceal a crime.
-
In my opinion had they been guilty they would have packed their bags after a decent interval and returned to obscurity in England where Madeleine would soon have been replaced in the news by the next tragedy.
It is solely her parents resolve, tenacity and belief that she is alive and needs to be looked for that has driven the investigation into her disappearance to be reopened; a truly strange behaviour if trying to conceal a crime.
See
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
-
In my opinion had they been guilty they would have packed their bags after a decent interval and returned to obscurity in England where Madeleine would soon have been replaced in the news by the next tragedy.
It is solely her parents resolve, tenacity and belief that she is alive and needs to be looked for that has driven the investigation into her disappearance to be reopened; a truly strange behaviour if trying to conceal a crime.
This is absolutely true....but everything is dismissed by the sceptics as it is with any conspiracy theory. Even SY stating the Mccanns are not suspects is dismissed...it seem we are supposed to believe that SY are spending 10 million in Portugal even though both they and Cameron know that really it was the McCanns themselves wot dunnit...ridiculous.
-
Give me one good reason why guilty people would ask for sniffer dogs to be brought in to investigate their crimes.
It would have been better if the quote had been given before the dogs were used, not after. That article could be seen as an exercise in damage limitation by a PR spokesperson in my opinion;
Public relations professionals also manage crises. "All publicity is good publicity," claims the old PR adage. But one piece of really bad press can tarnish the well-honed image of a business, college or politician for good. According to a 2007 survey by Harris Interactive, 15 percent of consumers would never again purchase a recalled brand. PR experts create a crisis management plan to respond quickly and proactively when a potentially damaging story is breaking.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/business-communications/how-public-relations-works2.htm
Another point to consider is why the McCanns would have asked for dogs to be used considering their opinion of these 'incredibly unreliable' dogs? Gerry McCann told Sandra Felgueiras;
I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/gerry-mccann-cadaver-dogs-are.html
If the McCanns did request that dogs be used they became incredibly unreliable only after they suggested foul play in apartment G5A then?
-
It would have been better if the quote had been given before the dogs were used, not after. That article could be seen as an exercise in damage limitation by a PR spokesperson in my opinion;
Public relations professionals also manage crises. "All publicity is good publicity," claims the old PR adage. But one piece of really bad press can tarnish the well-honed image of a business, college or politician for good. According to a 2007 survey by Harris Interactive, 15 percent of consumers would never again purchase a recalled brand. PR experts create a crisis management plan to respond quickly and proactively when a potentially damaging story is breaking.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/business-communications/how-public-relations-works2.htm
Another point to consider is why the McCanns would have asked for dogs to be used considering their opinion of these 'incredibly unreliable' dogs? Gerry McCann told Sandra Felgueiras;
I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/gerry-mccann-cadaver-dogs-are.html
If the McCanns did request that dogs be used they became incredibly unreliable only after they suggested foul play in apartment G5A then?
Depends very much on circumstances and the dog.
Those of us with an interest in the case have witnessed Eddie trampling through and picking up and playing with the 'evidence' from garments to tennis balls and pink cuddle cat ... not forgetting the pork sandwich or whatever lifted from a kitchen waste bin.
This was not his trained response ... and that is a very important issue to bear in mind.
**snip
Dogs should be trained in such a way that, if they do locate, for example, a human cadaver, they do not actually touch or attempt to retrieve the remains, which would compromise potential evidence.
http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/detectiondogs.shtml
The expensive British dogs brought to PDL proved nothing ... and given they failed to find evidence of Madeleine's death (please read Martin Grime's conclusions in the files) it has to be assumed that she is still alive, and there was certainly a stronger chance that was the case back in 2007.
-
Depends very much on circumstances and the dog.
Those of us with an interest in the case have witnessed Eddie trampling through and picking up and playing with the 'evidence' from garments to tennis balls and pink cuddle cat ... not forgetting the pork sandwich or whatever lifted from a kitchen waste bin.
This was not his trained response ... and that is a very important issue to bear in mind.
**snip
Dogs should be trained in such a way that, if they do locate, for example, a human cadaver, they do not actually touch or attempt to retrieve the remains, which would compromise potential evidence.
http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/detectiondogs.shtml
The expensive British dogs brought to PDL proved nothing ... and given they failed to find evidence of Madeleine's death (please read Martin Grime's conclusions in the files) it has to be assumed that she is still alive, and there was certainly a stronger chance that was the case back in 2007.
The very fact that the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death supports the fact that she may still be alive.
-
It would have been better if the quote had been given before the dogs were used, not after. That article could be seen as an exercise in damage limitation by a PR spokesperson in my opinion;
Public relations professionals also manage crises. "All publicity is good publicity," claims the old PR adage. But one piece of really bad press can tarnish the well-honed image of a business, college or politician for good. According to a 2007 survey by Harris Interactive, 15 percent of consumers would never again purchase a recalled brand. PR experts create a crisis management plan to respond quickly and proactively when a potentially damaging story is breaking.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/business-communications/how-public-relations-works2.htm
Another point to consider is why the McCanns would have asked for dogs to be used considering their opinion of these 'incredibly unreliable' dogs? Gerry McCann told Sandra Felgueiras;
I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/gerry-mccann-cadaver-dogs-are.html
If the McCanns did request that dogs be used they became incredibly unreliable only after they suggested foul play in apartment G5A then?
If I made a public statement that I had asked the police to do something when in fact I had asked no such thing I would be somewhat be concerned that they (the police) would have tangible evidence of my propensity to tell blatant lies, wouldn't you?
-
See
Your quote of "the lady doth protest too much....methinks" is curiously apt.
Because in Shakespear's day "protest" did not mean "object" or "deny"but rather meant "vow" or "declare solemnly".
But then of course Alice would be the forum expert on this play. ?{)(**
-
Your quote of "the lady doth protest too much....methinks" is curiously apt.
Because in Shakespear's day "protest" did not mean "object" or "deny"but rather meant "vow" or "declare solemnly".
But then of course Alice would be the forum expert on this play. ?{)(**
It a question of who it best fits.
-
Depends very much on circumstances and the dog.
Those of us with an interest in the case have witnessed Eddie trampling through and picking up and playing with the 'evidence' from garments to tennis balls and pink cuddle cat ... not forgetting the pork sandwich or whatever lifted from a kitchen waste bin.
This was not his trained response ... and that is a very important issue to bear in mind.
**snip
Dogs should be trained in such a way that, if they do locate, for example, a human cadaver, they do not actually touch or attempt to retrieve the remains, which would compromise potential evidence.
http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/detectiondogs.shtml
The expensive British dogs brought to PDL proved nothing ... and given they failed to find evidence of Madeleine's death (please read Martin Grime's conclusions in the files) it has to be assumed that she is still alive, and there was certainly a stronger chance that was the case back in 2007.
Keela proved that Eddie didn't alert to blood on their clothes. SY and cadaver dogs were looking for evidence of a body last summer.
-
Keela proved that Eddie didn't alert to blood on their clothes. SY and cadaver dogs were looking for evidence of a body last summer.
if none of the alerts are of evidential reliability they cannot prove anything
-
Your quote of "the lady doth protest too much....methinks" is curiously apt.
Because in Shakespear's day "protest" did not mean "object" or "deny"but rather meant "vow" or "declare solemnly".
But then of course Alice would be the forum expert on this play. ?{)(**
I did reply saying in the context of the play the old or modern definition of the word works.
Post was whooshed. Bleedin' cultural desert 8(>((
-
The very fact that the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death supports the fact that she may still be alive.
Unless there are human remains around these dogs can't find anything to confirm a death. What they do is alert to the scent they are trained to find. The EVRD dog alerted in apartment G5A in two places; in the parent's bedroom near the wardrobe and in the living room behind the couch.
The CSI dog also alerted behind the couch, which suggests that both dogs were alerting to blood in that location. As the CSI dog didn't alert in the bedroom that could have been an indication that the EVRD dog alerted because a body had been there. As no body was found, the alert by the EVRD dog was simply a clue, or an 'indication' as Grimes refers to it.
So the dogs didn't find nothing, they indicated two possibilities. Forensic analysis found DNA on the swabs taken from behind the couch, but not enough to say who it belonged to. Nevertheless, something was found belonging to someone.
Both dogs alerted to the McCann's car, in particular to the key, and DNA consistent with that of Gerry McCann was found on the key. The CSI dog alerted in the boot of the car and DNA was recovered, but was not matched to any one person.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
-
The very fact that the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death supports the fact that she may still be alive.
FACT ???
So where is she exactly ?
Worldwide publicity has revealed nothing as to what happened.
As far as your statement /belief is concerned, 'the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death' , it 'supports the fact' she is living on Alpha Centuari II, 4.3 Light Years away.
-
FACT ???
So where is she exactly ?
Worldwide publicity has revealed nothing as to what happened.
As far as your statement /belief is concerned, 'the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death' , it 'supports the fact' she is living on Alpha Centuari II, 4.3 Light Years away.
What proof is there that maddie is no longer alive...you do not seem to understand the basic facts
-
What proof is there that maddie is no longer alive...you do not seem to understand the basic facts
You are very common of use of the word 'cites'.
Now 'cite' some evidence to affirm your statement.
-
You are very common of use of the word 'cites'.
Now 'cite' some evidence to affirm your statement.
there is no proof either way...therefore there can be no cite....
Maddie may be alive or sadly dead...that's a fact. Do you have a cite to prove otherwise
-
there is no proof either way...therefore there can be no cite....
Maddie may be alive or sadly dead...that's a fact. Do you have a cite to prove otherwise
Therefore your statement is meaningless
'The very fact that the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death supports the fact that she may still be alive.'
IT IS NO FACT.
-
Therefore your statement is meaningless
'The very fact that the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death supports the fact that she may still be alive.'
IT IS NO FACT.
If there is no proof she is dead then it is a fact that she may still be alive...that is very simple to understand and is a statement based on fact
-
If there is no proof she is dead then it is a fact that she may still be alive...that is very simple to understand and is a statement based on fact
There is absolutely no proof she is alive.
THAT IS A FACT.
-
There is absolutely no proof she is alive.
THAT IS A FACT.
can you not understand basic logic...
There is no proof she is alive
There is no proof she is dead
Therefore either may be true...is that simple enough for you
-
can you not understand basic logic...
There is no proof she is alive
There is no proof she is dead
Therefore either may be true...is that simple enough for you
Well here's simple logic.
Don't make statements that make no sense.
and merely because the forensics were inconclusive, it does NOT MEAN THE DOGS DIDN'T ALERT TO A BODY.
Do you comprehend that ???
-
Well here's simple logic.
Don't make statements that make no sense.
and merely because the forensics were inconclusive, it does NOT MEAN THE DOGS DIDN'T ALERT TO A BODY.
Do you comprehend that ???
There is no proof the dogs alerted to a body
There is no proof the dogs did not alert to a body
Therefore either may be true
-
There is no proof the dogs alerted to a body
There is no proof the dogs did not alert to a body
Therefore either may be true
Now you maintain that Madeleine could be alive ?
So you must have reason to think so.
So where exactly could she be ?
1. In the hands of a paedophile(s) ?
or
2. With a loving Family who are completely unaware of the worldwide publicity for nearly 8 years, as are the people around them?
-
Now you maintain that Madeleine could be alive ?
So you must have reason to think so.
So where exactly could she be ?
1. In the hands of a paedophile(s) ?
or
2. With a loving Family who are completely unaware of the worldwide publicity for nearly 8 years, as are the people around them?
sadly realistically if maddie was alive number 1 would be most likley
-
Now you maintain that Madeleine could be alive ?
So you must have reason to think so.
So where exactly could she be ?
1. In the hands of a paedophile(s) ?
or
2. With a loving Family who are completely unaware of the worldwide publicity for nearly 8 years, as are the people around them?
so you accept Maddie may still be alive...that is a fact.. as for speculation of where she may be I have no idea
-
so you accept Maddie may still be alive...that is a fact.. as for speculation of where she may be I have no idea
No, I don't accept Madeleine is alive.
There is not one jot of evidence to support that she is.
See my last post for why.
-
No, I don't accept Madeleine is alive.
There is not one jot of evidence to support that she is.
See my last post for why.
You really are slow...where have I said Maddie is alive...It is a complete waste of time discussing anything with you
-
Well, I haven't given up. Too many abducted children have been found after years and years.
-
You really are slow...where have I said Maddie is alive...It is a complete waste of time discussing anything with you
''The very fact that the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death supports the fact that she may still be alive.''
Your words dave.
-
''The very fact that the best dogs in the world found nothing to confirm Maddie's death supports the fact that she may still be alive.''
Your words dave.
that's right...maddie may still be alive
-
that's right...maddie may still be alive
Where ???
With a paedophile ?
Or playing happy families ?
-
Where ???
With a paedophile ?
Or playing happy families ?
you are asking the same questions over and over again...and getting the same reply...Einstein defined that as insanity
-
you are asking the same questions over and over again...and getting the same reply...Einstein defined that as insanity
What a truly pathetic response, but i expected no better.
Now try answering the questions I asked in the last post.
Otherwise, posters will see where the insanity really lies.
-
What a truly pathetic response, but i expected no better.
Now try answering the questions I asked in the last post.
Otherwise, posters will see where the insanity really lies.
Davel has already answered your question.
-
Davel has already answered your question.
No he hasn't.
He has evaded answering.
P.S. Can't he type for himself ?
So benice, if you think Madeleine is alive, is she:
1. With a paedophile ?
or
2. With a family ?
-
What a truly pathetic response, but i expected no better.
Now try answering the questions I asked in the last post.
Otherwise, posters will see where the insanity really lies.
I have no interest in answering any of your questions..you never answer any.....you challenged my post and have failed...maddie may still be alive...fact
-
No he hasn't.
He has evaded answering.
P.S. Can't he type for himself ?
So benice, if you think Madeleine is alive, is she:
1. With a paedophile ?
or
2. With a family ?
Stephen, this question is unanswerable.
-
I have no interest in answering any of your questions..you never answer any.....you challenged my post and have failed...maddie may still be alive...fact
It's obvious she's dead, fact.
-
I have no interest in answering any of your questions..you never answer any.....you challenged my post and have failed...maddie may still be alive...fact
By that logic, Madeleine may therefore be on Mars.
No proof to the contrary.
So dave, would you concur Madeleine may be there ?
-
It's obvious she's dead, fact.
Unfortunately Wonderfulspam, some people can't see the wood because of the trees.
-
No he hasn't.
He has evaded answering.
P.S. Can't he type for himself ?
So benice, if you think Madeleine is alive, is she:
1. With a paedophile ?
or
2. With a family ?
This was Davel's reply
''so you accept Maddie may still be alive...that is a fact as for speculation of where she may be I have no idea''
My reply would be the same - as I have no idea either.
-
Where ???
With a paedophile ?
Or playing happy families ?
If she was abducted by paedophiles, then tragically she is most likely dead.
In my opinion, and in the absence of her body being found, there is an outside chance of Madeleine having been sold to a family. It is a very slim chance, but you cannot rule out the possibility.
-
This was Davel's reply
''so you accept Maddie may still be alive...that is a fact as for speculation of where she may be I have no idea''
My reply would be the same - as I have no idea either.
He didn't refer to those two questions.
So you would concede she could be on Mars for all the evidence available ?
Personally, I don't believe in pipe dreams. Just hard facts.
-
If she was abducted by paedophiles, then tragically she is most likely dead.
In my opinion, and in the absence of her body being found, there is an outside chance of Madeleine having been sold to a family. It is a very slim chance, but you cannot rule out the possibility.
I can.
I don't believe in fantasies.
How about you ?
-
I can.
I don't believe in fantasies.
How about you ?
No problem, Stephen. You are certain she is dead,
I am not certain.
I suggest we agree to differ on this.
-
It's obvious she's dead, fact.
No, it isn't obvious, or a fact. Anymore statements like this will be removed.
-
No, it isn't obvious, or a fact. Anymore statements like this will be removed.
It may not be a fact but it is the most realistic outcome.
-
He didn't refer to those two questions.
So you would concede she could be on Mars for all the evidence available ?
Personally, I don't believe in pipe dreams. Just hard facts.
Davel did refer to those two questions. Here is your post to him asking them.
Quote
So where exactly could she be ?
1. In the hands of a paedophile(s) ?
or
2. With a loving Family who are completely unaware of the worldwide publicity for nearly 8 years, as are the people around them?
Unquote
Davel's response to that question was that he had no idea where she is.
Stop telling fibs.
-
Davel did refer to those two questions. Here is your post to him asking them.
Quote
So where exactly could she be ?
1. In the hands of a paedophile(s) ?
or
2. With a loving Family who are completely unaware of the worldwide publicity for nearly 8 years, as are the people around them?
Unquote
Davel's response to that question was that he had no idea where she is.
Stop telling fibs.
Stop diverting benice.
Those are the clear alternatives, if she is alive.
dave could have opted for one or the other.
Both can't be true.
and why can't he answer for himself ?
-
It may not be a fact but it is the most realistic outcome.
It isn't to me.
-
Stop diverting benice.
Those are the clear alternatives, if she is alive.
dave could have opted for one or the other.
Both can't be true.
and why can't he answer for himself ?
As you are being ridiculous Stephen here's one for you-
You say Madeleine is dead, then help the police find her body where is she?
Buried?
In the sea?
Come on you can opt for one of them.
-
Stop diverting benice.
Those are the clear alternatives, if she is alive.
dave could have opted for one or the other.
Both can't be true.
and why can't he answer for himself ?
LOL you don't do irony do you Stephen.
Davel did give you an answer. You claimed that he didn't. You were wrong. The fact that you cannot admit it and apologise to him says it all IMO.
The posts are all there for everyone to see.
-
Well, I haven't given up. Too many abducted children have been found after years and years.
Those are the ones that we know about, Eleanor, and there must be so many more running into the thousands.
Fascist regimes have been particularly adept at 'redistributing' children ... in recent history the Nazis did it, Fascist regimes in South America did it, Spain did it.
Who is to say there wasn't a residue of that attitude around Madeleine justified by the thinking that it was OK because they did have another two to ease the blow.
There is not a shred of evidence pointing to Madeleine McCann's death ... therefore it is her right as a human being to be considered as living and capable of being found until confirmation either way.
I remain astounded at the eagerness of some that a British child missing abroad should not be looked for on the word of a convicted perjurer.
-
you do realise that even if maddie is alive she would have no memory of what really did happen in portugal that night the human mind can only recall basic things from about 4 or 5 at the most
-
LOL you don't do irony do you Stephen.
Davel did give you an answer. You claimed that he didn't. You were wrong. The fact that you cannot admit it and apologise to him says it all IMO.
The posts are all there for everyone to see.
I asked with reference to specific and the only logical alternatives.
Your defence of him says everything about him and you.
He did not refer to those.
So like him, you clearly also believe in fantasies.
-
If she was abducted by paedophiles, then tragically she is most likely dead.
In my opinion, and in the absence of her body being found, there is an outside chance of Madeleine having been sold to a family. It is a very slim chance, but you cannot rule out the possibility.
Until all possible investigative avenues have been exhausted ... and testimony to the fact the initial investigation failed in that is the fact that Operation Grange found so many which had not been followed through ... the possibility that Madeleine McCann is alive cannot be ruled out.
-
Those are the ones that we know about, Eleanor, and there must be so many more running into the thousands.
Fascist regimes have been particularly adept at 'redistributing' children ... in recent history the Nazis did it, Fascist regimes in South America did it, Spain did it.
Who is to say there wasn't a residue of that attitude around Madeleine justified by the thinking that it was OK because they did have another two to ease the blow.
There is not a shred of evidence pointing to Madeleine McCann's death ... therefore it is her right as a human being to be considered as living and capable of being found until confirmation either way.
I remain astounded at the eagerness of some that a British child missing abroad should not be looked for on the word of a convicted perjurer.
And that's it in a nutshell IMO Brietta. As you say ..'astounding' - not to mention totally incomprehensible imo.
-
I asked with reference to specific and the only logical alternatives.
Your defence of him says everything about him and you.
He did not refer to those.
So like him, you clearly also believe in fantasies.
I answered your question..I have no idea...your problem is you didn't like the answer. You are starting to appear a little fixated stephen
-
The problem I have with the dogs, is that what Eddie can smell not straight forward.
Both dogs react to blood. Eddie reacts to blood and cadaver.
BUT, for what I have read a cadaver dog can smell something that has once been there.
Reading about cadaver dogs alerts, in one instance a cadaver dog alerted but as they said, there could have been something with blood on it left there that had nothing at all to do with the case.
If that is so, Eddie could have been alerting in the bedroom to something such as a bloodied tissue where someone had cut themselves or had a nose bleed, that tissue of whatever was not there anymore but the odour of it was still there.
As 5a was rented out to other families, who knows what could have been there from one of them.
These people were asked if anyone had died they said no, so they were all dismissed.
-
you do realise that even if maddie is alive she would have no memory of what really did happen in portugal that night the human mind can only recall basic things from about 4 or 5 at the most
If that is your justification not to look for a missing child ... that's fine ... however, it sounds like a kidnapper's charter to me.
-
I asked with reference to specific and the only logical alternatives.
Your defence of him says everything about him and you.
He did not refer to those.
So like him, you clearly also believe in fantasies.
I'm not defending anyone. I'm objecting to you telling fibs about another poster.
-
you do realise that even if maddie is alive she would have no memory of what really did happen in portugal that night the human mind can only recall basic things from about 4 or 5 at the most
I have memories going back to 2 yrs old...and I'm sure others do too
-
Those are the ones that we know about, Eleanor, and there must be so many more running into the thousands.
Fascist regimes have been particularly adept at 'redistributing' children ... in recent history the Nazis did it, Fascist regimes in South America did it, Spain did it.
Who is to say there wasn't a residue of that attitude around Madeleine justified by the thinking that it was OK because they did have another two to ease the blow.
There is not a shred of evidence pointing to Madeleine McCann's death ... therefore it is her right as a human being to be considered as living and capable of being found until confirmation either way.
I remain astounded at the eagerness of some that a British child missing abroad should not be looked for on the word of a convicted perjurer.
The high court made madeleine a ward of court, which she continues to be and therefore, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.
The only thing that will change this, is If evidence is found that Madeleine is in fact no longer alive.
The proof required is her body, which has not been found dead or alive.
What ever we think is most probable, is legally, of no importance without evidence.
-
The problem I have with the dogs, is that what Eddie can smell not straight forward.
Both dogs react to blood. Eddie reacts to blood and cadaver.
BUT, for what I have read a cadaver dog can smell something that has once been there.
Reading about cadaver dogs alerts, in one instance a cadaver dog alerted but as they said, there could have been something with blood on it left there that had nothing at all to do with the case.
If that is so, Eddie could have been alerting in the bedroom to something such as a bloodied tissue where someone had cut themselves or had a nose bleed, that tissue of whatever was not there anymore but the odour of it was still there.
As 5a was rented out to other families, who knows what could have been there from one of them.
These people were asked if anyone had died they said no, so they were all dismissed.
Exactly so, Lace.
There is also the conundrum of the supposed alerts to articles of clothing and cuddlecat ... all items which Eddie picked up in his mouth in absolute contradiction to his trained response.
We are told 'the scent of death' is highly transferable ... IMO this is fact. Therefore everything which those items came into contact with would reek to Eddie's nose.
He alerted to nothing in every other area where those items had been ... that includes the Payne apartment, their temporary accommodation in block 4 ... the rented villa ... the containers they had been packed in ... and singularly there was no alert to any of the clothing worn by Dr Gerry McCann.
Therefore neither physical or esoteric proof of death ... no proof, therefore the presumption must be that Madeleine McCann was alive when she left the apartment, and there is a possibility she may still be.
No-one will know anything for sure unless she is looked for.
-
you do realise that even if maddie is alive she would have no memory of what really did happen in portugal that night the human mind can only recall basic things from about 4 or 5 at the most
If Maddie is found alive, I don't think that the first thing on peoples minds will be her memory.
She is the most important person in this whole case, not the person who may have taken her.
-
you do realise that even if maddie is alive she would have no memory of what really did happen in portugal that night the human mind can only recall basic things from about 4 or 5 at the most
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Carly.
What do you mean by "basic things"?
"What really did happen in portugal that night" - what do you mean? The entire sequence of events? If so, probably not.
However, I know from personal experience that flash memories are possible from a much younger age.
-
SY are going on the basis that Madeleine was taken during a 'botched' burglary. Where have they said these burglars are Paedophiles?
-
SY are going on the basis that Madeleine was taken during a 'botched' burglary. Where have they said these burglars are Paedophiles?
I think SY have abandoned the paedophile line, now, due to lack of any evidence. How long before they give up on Burglar Bill?
-
I answered your question..I have no idea...your problem is you didn't like the answer. You are starting to appear a little fixated stephen
Fixated Dave ???
I am not the person who believes in fantasies of Madeleine being alive.
You are, along with some of your fellows. 8)-)))
Now the question arises of why certain parties believe in her returning, which n there has been no trace of her at all, since the night she disappeared.
-
Fixated Dave ???
I am not the person who believes in fantasies of Madeleine being alive.
You are, along with some of your fellows. 8)-)))
Now the question arises of why certain parties believe in her returning, which n there has been no trace of her at all, since the night she disappeared.
Who has said that they believe that she will be returning, Stephen?
Because it is unknown what happened to her and no body has been found, it would be unrealistic to say as a fact, that she is alive or in fact, that she is dead.
-
Fixated Dave ???
I am not the person who believes in fantasies of Madeleine being alive.
You are, along with some of your fellows. 8)-)))
Now the question arises of why certain parties believe in her returning, which n there has been no trace of her at all, since the night she disappeared.
Nobody can say Madeleine is definitely dead, or definitely alive. In the absence of absolute proof there remains a possibility, however slim. You may not like it but that is a fact.
To be honest Stephen, you are showing a rather creepy determination to convince everyone that Madeleine is dead. You have become the forum equivalent of the drunk pub bore, droning on and on about their pet obsession.
It would be funny, if the subject were not so tragic.
-
I think SY have abandoned the paedophile line, now, due to lack of any evidence. How long before they give up on Burglar Bill?
With all the talk of Madeleine is probably with Paedophiles there is no evidence of this if it was a burglary gone wrong. Why would the burglars have handed her over to Paedophiles?
It is only if she was targeted that she could have been taken for a Paedophile ring, though she could easily have been taken for trafficking for a family.
I think if money could have been made out of Madeleine then it was.
-
There doesn't seem to be anything to prove it was a burglary gone wrong either.
-
There doesn't seem to be anything to prove it was a burglary gone wrong either.
I feel if SY had found absolutely nothing they would not be talking so positively about the investigation continuing...we just do not know
-
I feel if SY had found absolutely nothing they would not be talking so positively about the investigation continuing...we just do not know
I think that is probably just as it should be until things are decided one way or t'other.
Who does it really matter to? Madeleine and her immediate family are the important ones here ... not a nondescript bunch of people chattering on the internet.
-
I think that is probably just as it should be until things are decided one way or t'other.
Who does it really matter to? Madeleine and her immediate family are the important ones here ... not a nondescript bunch of people chattering on the internet.
When the Secrecy is lifted, we will hopefully know what has been unearthed if anything, until then, it is all just a guessing game.
-
Nobody can say Madeleine is definitely dead, or definitely alive. In the absence of absolute proof there remains a possibility, however slim. You may not like it but that is a fact.
To be honest Stephen, you are showing a rather creepy determination to convince everyone that Madeleine is dead. You have become the forum equivalent of the drunk pub bore, droning on and on about their pet obsession.
It would be funny, if the subject were not so tragic.
Pub bore ?
Subjective opinion.
What I find distasteful is the repeated 'abduction' scenario, for which there exists no proof whatsoever, and is churned out day by day, as if it the only 'reason' for Madeleine's disappearance, when it is certainly not the case.
As to wanting Madeleine dead, that is nasty, as I have said no such thing.
I just believe there is no chance that will happen.
Unlike you and your fellow supporters, I don't believe in fantasies, just reality.
One day you might understand that point, but I somehow doubt that will occur, as mccann supporters have to perpetuate the idea of abduction, and that she will miraculously return.
-
I think that is probably just as it should be until things are decided one way or t'other.
Who does it really matter to? Madeleine and her immediate family are the important ones here ... not a nondescript bunch of people chattering on the internet.
does that translate into "disparate and largely dysfunctional internet punters" ? 8(>((
I have posted to that effect several times ?>)()<
-
Pub bore ?
Subjective opinion.
What I find distasteful is the repeated 'abduction' scenario, for which there exists no proof whatsoever, and is churned out day by day, as if it the only 'reason' for Madeleine's disappearance, when it is certainly not the case.
As to wanting Madeleine dead, that is nasty, as I have said no such thing.
I just believe there is no chance that will happen.
Unlike you and your fellow supporters, I don't believe in fantasies, just reality.
One day you might understand that point, but I somehow doubt that will occur, as mccann supporters have to perpetuate the idea of abduction, and that she will miraculously return.
Do you know what happened to Madeleine?
Of course not. the perpetrator of the crime will know, and maybe accomplices, but until the riddle is solved we cannot and should not rule anything out, including the possibility that she is alive.
It is possible she was abducted for some reason.
It is possible that she wandered
It is possible her parents were involved.
It is possible that there is something that nobody has yet thought of.
That is my opinion. However, it seems, from reading endless posts by you, that you cannot accept that others have a perfectly valid and rational stance that Madeleine may, possibly, be still alive.
And you, I do think your obsession that Madeleine is dead, and your constant drone about it, is just plain nasty.
I said earlier on that we will have to agree to differ - sadly you seem to be unable to accept that without the usual insults.
-
Pub bore ?
Subjective opinion.
What I find distasteful is the repeated 'abduction' scenario, for which there exists no proof whatsoever, and is churned out day by day, as if it the only 'reason' for Madeleine's disappearance, when it is certainly not the case.
As to wanting Madeleine dead, that is nasty, as I have said no such thing.
I just believe there is no chance that will happen.
Unlike you and your fellow supporters, I don't believe in fantasies, just reality.
One day you might understand that point, but I somehow doubt that will occur, as mccann supporters have to perpetuate the idea of abduction, and that she will miraculously return.
I take it you are referring to amaral and his drink driving...cite...his wife
-
Do you know what happened to Madeleine?
Of course not. the perpetrator of the crime will know, and maybe accomplices, but until the riddle is solved we cannot and should not rule anything out, including the possibility that she is alive.
It is possible she was abducted for some reason.
It is possible that she wandered
It is possible her parents were involved.
It is possible that there is something that nobody has yet thought of.
That is my opinion. However, it seems, from reading endless posts by you, that you cannot accept that others have a perfectly valid and rational stance that Madeleine may, possibly, be still alive.
And you, I do think your obsession that Madeleine is dead, and your constant drone about it, is just plain nasty.
I said earlier on that we will have to agree to differ - sadly you seem to be unable to accept that without the usual insults.
Same old rubbish.
i.e. You feel free to try and insult me of course.
However, that is no surprise.
Simply don't bother replying to my posts.
Pray tell, give me one rational and logical premise, which after 8 years of absolutely nothing, would suggest that Madeleine is still alive.
I'm all ears.
8)--))
-
Same old rubbish.
i.e. You feel free to try and insult me of course.
However, that is no surprise.
Simply don't bother replying to my posts.
Pray tell, give me one rational and logical premise, which after 8 years of absolutely nothing, would suggest that Madeleine is still alive.
I'm all ears.
8)--))
Given your insistence that Madeleine is definitely dead, you are a sensitive little flower Stephen.
One rational and logical premise that Madeleine may still be alive? A body has not been found. And in the absence of a body there is a possibility (however remote) that she is still alive.
-
Given your insistence that Madeleine is definitely dead, you are a sensitive little flower Stephen.
One rational and logical premise that Madeleine may still be alive? A body has not been found. And in the absence of a body there is a possibility (however remote) that she is still alive.
Flower no, stroppy yes.
She may also be on Mars.
As much evidence for that as for her being still alive. 8)-)))
-
Flower no, stroppy yes.
She may also be on Mars.
As much evidence for that as for her being still alive. 8)-)))
you are becoming a serious bore
-
Flower no, stroppy yes.
She may also be on Mars.
As much evidence for that as for her being still alive. 8)-)))
Why stroppy? Have you been drinking, Stephen?
You surely don't think your opinion somehow counts for anything in this matter, do you? The same applies to all posters here.
And juvenile comments about Mars aside - that is the point- there is no evidence of anything. And therefore there remains a possibility that Madeleine is alive. A very slim chance but still a chance.
I really cannot understand why the possibility that Madeleine may just possibly be still alive upsets you so much. You seem to be taking this very personally.
-
you are becoming a serious bore
Tough.
8)--))
-
Tough.
8)--))
it doesn't bother me.....it's quite satisfying that as a sceptic you have no serious arguments
-
There is no logical or rational answer to be given as SY haven't found anything in 8 years, they haven't found ____ all so I'll be very surprised if they find anything now.
However we can't prove that she is dead, but in 8 years there has been no evidence to even hint that she is still alive.
Hopefully you have convinced Stephen that there is no proof maddie is dead
-
Back On Topic, Please.
-
Back On Topic, Please.
Surely Stephen is bang on topic? I don't think he ever held out any hope of Madeleine being found alive!
-
Surely Stephen is bang on topic? I don't think he ever held out any hope of Madeleine being found alive!
Brilliant
-
Surely Stephen is bang on topic? I don't think he ever held out any hope of Madeleine being found alive!
Unfortunately alfred, I don't believe in fairy stories.
However, you clearly do.
You also need to know the difference between thinking someone is dead, and wanting them dead.
Do you know the difference, or are you so attached to supporting the mccanns, you are now incapable of real logic ?
-
Why stroppy? Have you been drinking, Stephen?
You surely don't think your opinion somehow counts for anything in this matter, do you? The same applies to all posters here.
And juvenile comments about Mars aside - that is the point- there is no evidence of anything. And therefore there remains a possibility that Madeleine is alive. A very slim chance but still a chance.
I really cannot understand why the possibility that Madeleine may just possibly be still alive upsets you so much. You seem to be taking this very personally.
We know jean who did the drinking, and placed their children in danger. 8)-)))
-
Unfortunately alfred, I don't believe in fairy stories.
However, you clearly do.
You also need to know the difference between thinking someone is dead, and wanting them dead.
Do you know the difference, or are you so attached to supporting the mccanns, you are now incapable of real logic ?
Firstly what fairy story is it you think I believe in?
Secondly, I know the difference between thinking and wanting, what makes you think otherwise?
Thirdly, I am very capable of processing logical thoughts - the question is - are you?
-
Firstly what fairy story is it you think I believe in?
Secondly, I know the difference between thinking and wanting, what makes you think otherwise?
Thirdly, I am very capable of processing logical thoughts - the question is - are you?
Absolutely.
However, in your case you are clearly wrapped up in the mccanns.
That does not lead to logical thinking.
Merely, a one-dimensional track to nowhere.
-
Absolutely.
However, in your case you are clearly wrapped up in the mccanns.
That does not lead to logical thinking.
Merely, a one-dimensional track to nowhere.
thanks for answering my third question, now how about the other two?
-
thanks for answering my third question, now how about the other two?
That is crystal clear.
If, of course you have been paying attention that is blatantly obvious, and for the second, from observation of your posts on here.
-
That is crystal clear.
If, of course you have been paying attention that is blatantly obvious, and for the second, from observation of your posts on here.
This is clear as mud.
-
Enough of the implied insults, Stephen. And anyone else for that matter. I will be deleting any such from now on.
-
That is crystal clear.
If, of course you have been paying attention that is blatantly obvious, and for the second, from observation of your posts on here.
I suspect the reason some posters on here are so definite that Madeleine is dead is because they find the alternative unpalateable - that is she were found alive then maybe the McCanns were not guilty - and that would never do.
-
I suspect the reason some posters on here are so definite that Madeleine is dead is because they find the alternative unpalateable - that is she were found alive then maybe the McCanns were not guilty - and that would never do.
I suspect that most supporter's interest in Madeleine's fate is marginal at best and is only viewed in the context of the impact it has on her parent's own fate.
-
The yard have made it clear that they think she is dead They don't use underground machines and cadaver dogs for no reason who are tested regularly to prove they are reliable so not unreliable Gerry. Find a body and prove age of death then everything changes. SY think they can find proof of death and the dogs evidence can be corroborated. If that happens we know where it leads to........
-
I suspect that most supporter's interest in Madeleine's fate is marginal at best and is only viewed in the context of the impact it has on her parent's own fate.
I agree...it's quite obvious that the main interest in some posters is simply to attack the parents....see some of your posts re the fund etc
-
I suspect that most supporter's interest in Madeleine's fate is marginal at best and is only viewed in the context of the impact it has on her parent's own fate.
Kindly demonstrate how your concern for Madeleine's fate is greater than, say, mine.
-
I suspect that most supporter's interest in Madeleine's fate is marginal at best and is only viewed in the context of the impact it has on her parent's own fate.
Absolutely right Faithlilly.
For a long time, this has solely been abouty protection of the parents.
Madeleine has become a secondary issue, no matter the claims to the contrary.
-
Absolutely right Faithlilly.
For a long time, this has solely been abouty protection of the parents.
Madeleine has become a secondary issue, no matter the claims to the contrary.
Do you have a cite for that.....no......just your very biased opinio
-
Absolutely right Faithlilly.
For a long time, this has solely been abouty protection of the parents.
Madeleine has become a secondary issue, no matter the claims to the contrary.
If you really cared deeply about Madeleine and what has become of her you and Faithlilly would not constantly whinge about the cost of Operation Grange and call for an end to the spending of taxpayers' money on the investigation.
-
If you really cared deeply about Madeleine and what has become of her you and Faithlilly would not constantly whinge about the cost of Operation Grange and call for an end to the spending of taxpayers' money on the investigation.
Oh excuses,excuses.
Rolled out yet again, the old cliche..........................
Unfortunately, more people are now seeing what a waste of money Operation Grange has become.
That allied with increasing cut-backs in Police Funding, to a case which has ground to a halt, a long time ago.
Now where could that money have been spent with a real nce to justice ?
-
Oh excuses,excuses.
Rolled out yet again, the old cliche..........................
Unfortunately, more people are now seeing what a waste of money Operation Grange has become.
That allied with increasing cut-backs in Police Funding, to a case which has ground to a halt, a long time ago.
Now where could that money have been spent with a real nce to justice ?
Cleaning up Chewing Gum on the pavements, it would seem.
-
Cleaning up Chewing Gum on the pavements, it would seem.
Another cliche rolled out.
That one originated on the myth forum.
How about the money being spent on crimes that could be solved and resulting in successful prosecutions in Court ?
Though you have to bear in mind with limited resources the police 'concentrate' on crimes they believe can be solved.
....and that is from two current Police Officers and one now former I know.
-
Another cliche rolled out.
That one originated on the myth forum.
How about the money being spent on crimes that could be solved and resulting in successful prosecutions in Court ?
Though you have to bear in mind with limited resources the police 'concentrate' on crimes they believe can be solved.
....and that is from two current Police Officers and one now former I know.
So Scotland Yard and The PJ believe they can solve this case?
And how's about scaring the hell out of potential abductors.
-
So Scotland Yard and The PJ believe they can solve this case?
And how's about scaring the hell out of potential abductors.
What on earth ???
-
What on earth ???
Read your own post, Stephen. You said that The Police only pursue cases they think they can solve.
As for scaring the hell out of potential abductors, I thought that comment spoke for itself.
-
Kindly demonstrate how your concern for Madeleine's fate is greater than, say, mine.
Kindly demonstrate where I said it was Alfie ?
-
Read your own post, Stephen. You said that The Police only pursue cases they think they can solve.
As for scaring the hell out of potential abductors, I thought that comment spoke for itself.
I was referring to cases in general.
Grange has spent £10,000,000 and nothing to show for it, after being initiated by Cameron.
As to scaring abductors, do you have a cite for that ?
-
So Scotland Yard and The PJ believe they can solve this case?
And how's about scaring the hell out of potential abductors.
Who knows what they think, but I believe they only went with the investigation because they got special funding.
People who want to abduct others are seldom deterred by the risks.
-
Cleaning up Chewing Gum on the pavements, it would seem.
Perhaps if you can point out where another missing child has had a comparable amount of money spent on the search for them for a comparable amount of time there may be a case made for it continuing.
-
Who knows what they think, but I believe they only went with the investigation because they got special funding.
People who want to abduct others are seldom deterred by the risks.
Precisely Jassi.
-
I was referring to cases in general.
Grange has spent £10,000,000 and nothing to show for it, after being initiated by Cameron.
As to scaring abductors, do you have a cite for that ?
No, I don't have a cite for that. Just common sense. An abductor might think twice about being hounded across borders, and ultimately caught. People like this don't do well in prison, so there is a Crime Prevention aspect to this.
In which case, money well spent.
-
Perhaps if you can point out where another missing child has had a comparable amount of money spent on the search for them for a comparable amount of time there may be a case made for it continuing.
Quote from The Telegraph: Re The April Jones case.
Detectives quickly launched what became the biggest search in British police history, with specialist teams spending six months scouring an area spanning almost 40 square miles.
The investigation and search is estimated to have cost in excess of £8.5 million.
Unquote
This cost covers a much shorter time span than the McCann case. No doubt it would have cost a great deal more if the perpetrator had not been found.
-
Perhaps if you can point out where another missing child has had a comparable amount of money spent on the search for them for a comparable amount of time there may be a case made for it continuing.
This is an unusual case of a British child being abducted abroad, followed by a crap investigation and a detective hell bent on blaming the parents. Scotland Yard have had to start from scratch.
And ten million is nothing in an attempt to stop this happening again. And already any potential abductor is weighing the odds of getting away with such a thing. Especially since any next time will be dealt with immediately.
I could cry at how badly that poor child was let down. But you don't need me to tell you of how awful were the mistakes.
-
I was referring to cases in general.
Grange has spent £10,000,000 and nothing to show for it, after being initiated by Cameron.
As to scaring abductors, do you have a cite for that ?
The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents almost 400 councils in England and Wales, is calling for gum giants to pay part of the £60 million annual removal cost. That figure would enable councils to fill in over a million potholes. The LGA wants a ‘producer pays' principle to apply, which means manufacturers would contribute to the cost of ensuring proper disposal. - See more at: http://www.local.gov.uk/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/6745145/NEWS#sthash.XvY6xIFZ.dpuf
The money spent by Operation Grange does not represent an annual expenditure ... it is the cost since inception ... and it is very small beer indeed when comparison is made with the annual cost of clearing chewing gum.
I think it makes your complaint about the money spent on the search for a missing child and an attempt to solve a crime is pathetic ... and the chewing gum fact illustrates that exactly.
-
Quote from The Telegraph: Re The April Jones case.
Detectives quickly launched what became the biggest search in British police history, with specialist teams spending six months scouring an area spanning almost 40 square miles.
The investigation and search is estimated to have cost in excess of £8.5 million.
Unquote
This cost covers a much shorter time span than the McCann case. No doubt it would have cost a great deal more if the perpetrator had not been found.
Precisely, Benice. Just how much money to some people think is being spent on cases of Child Abduction? How much money do they think should be spent? Let's all give up after how much?
-
The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents almost 400 councils in England and Wales, is calling for gum giants to pay part of the £60 million annual removal cost. That figure would enable councils to fill in over a million potholes. The LGA wants a ‘producer pays' principle to apply, which means manufacturers would contribute to the cost of ensuring proper disposal. - See more at: http://www.local.gov.uk/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10180/6745145/NEWS#sthash.XvY6xIFZ.dpuf
The money spent by Operation Grange does not represent an annual expenditure ... it is the cost since inception ... and it is very small beer indeed when comparison is made with the annual cost of clearing chewing gum.
I think it makes your complaint about the money spent on the search for a missing child and an attempt to solve a crime is pathetic ... and the chewing gum fact illustrates that exactly.
The thing which is clearly and totally pathetic is the trawling of the 'chewing gum' every time the waste of money that Operation Grange is.
Perhaps you should question the R'soles who regularly spit chewing gum and other 'substances' onto the streets of this country.
As to Grange, it has nothing to show for all the money spent.
-
This is an unusual case of a British child being abducted abroad, followed by a crap investigation and a detective hell bent on blaming the parents. Scotland Yard have had to start from scratch.
And ten million is nothing in an attempt to stop this happening again. And already any potential abductor is weighing the odds of getting away with such a thing. Especially since any next time will be dealt with immediately.
I could cry at how badly that poor child was let down. But you don't need me to tell you of how awful were the mistakes.
Yes actually I do Eleanor.
And let us not forget Amaral was part of a team and his successor Rebelo seems to have concurred with the 'parents as suspects' view.
-
The thing which is clearly and totally pathetic is the trawling of the 'chewing gum' every time the waste of money that Operation Grange is.
Perhaps you should question the R'soles who regularly spit chewing gum and other 'substances' onto the streets of this country.
As to Grange, it has nothing to show for all the money spent.
And yet you have no problem with the 'trawling' of the 15 year old Barry George case on a regular basis whenever DCI Redwood is mentioned. Double standards?
How can anyone know what Op. Grange has to show - when we haven't been informed of their findings?
Or are you claiming that SY are keeping you in the picture?
-
The thing which is clearly and totally pathetic is the trawling of the 'chewing gum' every time the waste of money that Operation Grange is.
Perhaps you should question the R'soles who regularly spit chewing gum and other 'substances' onto the streets of this country.
As to Grange, it has nothing to show for all the money spent.
There are other advantages to working in close liaison with colleagues from a different country and different cultures which could probably be of benefit to future investigations abroad.
Contacts and networks will have been established and professional developments enhanced.
We know that Scotland Yard have emphasised the fact that there will be no constant update on the investigation as requested and in line with Portuguese practice.
I think your offence at the expenditure is that real culprits are being sought ... and not your culprits of choice.
-
Yes actually I do Eleanor.
And let us not forget Amaral was part of a team and his successor Rebelo seems to have concurred with the 'parents as suspects' view.
No. Rebelo didn't actually concur. And never stated that he did. He was on a Face Saving Exercise. But it was much too late for that.
Okay, blame the whole Team. But none of the others wrote a book. And their efforts in Court were hardly supportive of Amaral.
-
No. Rebelo didn't actually concur. And never stated that he did. He was on a Face Saving Exercise. But it was much too late for that.
Okay, blame the whole Team. But none of the others wrote a book. And their efforts in Court were hardly supportive of Amaral.
So Rebelo went through all the legal loopholes put in his way to organise the rogatory interviews and the rigmarole of arranging the reconstruction to.........? Surely not to save the face of a colleague who, we are told, he had no respect for ?
As to Amaral's colleagues being 'hardly supportive' of him in court, how so ?
-
Oh excuses,excuses.
Rolled out yet again, the old cliche..........................
Unfortunately, more people are now seeing what a waste of money Operation Grange has become.
That allied with increasing cut-backs in Police Funding, to a case which has ground to a halt, a long time ago.
Now where could that money have been spent with a real nce to justice ?
Thanks for proving my point. If you really cared about what happened to Madeleine McCann you would not bemoan the amount of money spent trying to get to the bottom of it.
-
Kindly demonstrate where I said it was Alfie ?
You said:
I suspect that most supporter's interest in Madeleine's fate is marginal at best and is only viewed in the context of the impact it has on her parent's own fate.
Am I not representative of "most supporter's" (sic) then?
-
No. Rebelo didn't actually concur. And never stated that he did. He was on a Face Saving Exercise. But it was much too late for that.
Okay, blame the whole Team. But none of the others wrote a book. And their efforts in Court were hardly supportive of Amaral.
I think there might very well have been a different outcome had Rebelo been tasked with the investigation from its inception ... or if a team with some expertise in child protection had been called in.
As we have seen there are some highly efficient professionals in the Portuguese police ... I don't think Madeleine McCann benefited from the involvement of any in the initial stages.
-
So Rebelo went through all the legal loopholes put in his way to organise the rogatory interviews and the rigmarole of arranging the reconstruction to.........? Surely not to save the face of a colleague who, we are told, he had no respect for ?
As to Amaral's colleagues being 'hardly supportive' of him in court, how so ?
Rebelo didn't even stay in England for The Payne Rogatory Interview. Leaks from The PJ, apparently.
And if you think Amaral's Team were supportive then you have been reading a different Trial from the one that I have.
-
This is an unusual case of a British child being abducted abroad, followed by a crap investigation and a detective hell bent on blaming the parents. Scotland Yard have had to start from scratch.
And ten million is nothing in an attempt to stop this happening again. And already any potential abductor is weighing the odds of getting away with such a thing. Especially since any next time will be dealt with immediately.
I could cry at how badly that poor child was let down. But you don't need me to tell you of how awful were the mistakes.
I think that's a bit harsh on the PJ who were playing catch up from the very beginning. Had this case happened in the UK the first people the police would have looked at would have been the parents. Compare with the case of Rebecca Watts (RIP). The first property investigated with dogs and forensics was the family home.
Although the GNR and the PJ noticed inconsistances at the beginning, they didn't seem to have the experience or resources to do what British police would have done in the same circumstances. In addition they were trying to deal with huge media and political interest, a language barrier, a lack of technology and holidaying witnesses who were leaving the country next day. Due to the media appeals, hundreds of sightings worldwide had to be looked at and eliminated.
SY can't start from scratch really, as they can't go back to the first few days and do the things they would have done then.
-
I think that's a bit harsh on the PJ who were playing catch up from the very beginning. Had this case happened in the UK the first people the police would have looked at would have been the parents. Compare with the case of Rebecca Watts (RIP). The first property investigated with dogs and forensics was the family home.
Although the GNR and the PJ noticed inconsistances at the beginning, they didn't seem to have the experience or resources to do what British police would have done in the same circumstances. In addition they were trying to deal with huge media and political interest, a language barrier, a lack of technology and holidaying witnesses who were leaving the country next day. Due to the media appeals, hundreds of sightings worldwide had to be looked at and eliminated.
SY can't start from scratch really, as they can't go back to the first few days and do the things they would have done then.
The PJ, i.e. Amaral, Coordinator Extraordinaire, were playing catch the parents. Sadly, they never got of that one, or got off on it either. Six months wasted. Scotland Yard would have dealt with Madeleine's parents in six days.
In My Opinion, Madeleine will only be found by chance now. The Abductor/s could well be a bit more simple.
-
Absolutely right Faithlilly.
For a long time, this has solely been abouty protection of the parents.
Madeleine has become a secondary issue, no matter the claims to the contrary.
Of all the theories out there the only ones the supporters will entertain are the abduction or the botched burglary. Strange as those are the ones with the least McCann blame.
-
And yet you have no problem with the 'trawling' of the 15 year old Barry George case on a regular basis whenever DCI Redwood is mentioned. Double standards?
How can anyone know what Op. Grange has to show - when we haven't been informed of their findings?
Or are you claiming that SY are keeping you in the picture?
and mccann supporters regularly mention the Cipriano case.................
Clearly SY has found nothing.
Unless you live in cloud cuckoo land.
-
Thanks for proving my point. If you really cared about what happened to Madeleine McCann you would not bemoan the amount of money spent trying to get to the bottom of it.
Pathetic response.
What about the victims of other crimes, with a chance of solving the cases ?
Or aren't other victims of crimes important alfred ???
Only Madeleine, is it ?
-
Pathetic response.
What about the victims of other crimes, with a chance of solving the cases ?
Or aren't other victims of crimes important alfred ???
Only Madeleine, is it ?
exactly why the fixation on maddie??
-
The PJ, i.e. Amaral, Coordinator Extraordinaire, were playing catch the parents. Sadly, they never got of that one, or got off on it either. Six months wasted. Scotland Yard would have dealt with Madeleine's parents in six days.
In My Opinion, Madeleine will only be found by chance now. The Abductor/s could well be a bit more simple.
If only it had been possible to deal with Madeleine's parents at the beginning. All the inconsistencies could have been examined and the parents could have been cleared of any wrongdoing or arrested. None of the evidence collected at the time proves parental involvement, but neither does it prove their innocence in my opinion.
-
If only it had been possible to deal with Madeleine's parents at the beginning. All the inconsistencies could have been examined and the parents could have been cleared of any wrongdoing or arrested. None of the evidence collected at the time proves parental involvement, but neither does it prove their innocence in my opinion.
The McCanns don't have to prove their innocence. They are only concerned with finding Madeleine. And rightly so.
I haven't given up on finding Madeleine, so why should they?
-
Pathetic response.
What about the victims of other crimes, with a chance of solving the cases ?
Or aren't other victims of crimes important alfred ???
Only Madeleine, is it ?
@)(++(*
A couple of pages ago you were agreeing with Faithlilly that McCann supporter's (sic) don't care about Madeleine's fate, and now you're accusing me of ONLY caring about Madeleine's fate to the exclusion of all other victims of crime - you do live in a topsy-turvy world don't you Stephen....
-
@)(++(*
A couple of pages ago you were agreeing with Faithlilly that McCann supporter's (sic) don't care about Madeleine's fate, and now you're accusing me of ONLY caring about Madeleine's fate to the exclusion of all other victims of crime - you do live in a topsy-turvy world don't you Stephen....
Well just for your benefit...........
I'll rephrase what I said.
You only care about the mccanns, and Madeleine, in my and other peoples opinions, is merely a means to an end for you.
GOT IT alfred ? 8(0(*
-
Well just for your benefit...........
I'll rephrase what I said.
You only care about the mccanns, and Madeleine, in my and other peoples opinions, is merely a means to an end for you.
GOT IT > 8(0(*
I care about finding out what actually happened to her which is why I don't begrudge the millions so far spent on trying to find out. You on the other hand DO begrudge the millions spent, leading one to conclude you don't really care about getting to the bottom of this mystery. I find that very odd indeed.
-
I care about finding out what actually happened to her which is why I don't begrudge the millions so far spent on trying to find out. You on the other hand DO begrudge the millions spent, leading one to conclude you don't really care about getting to the bottom of this mystery. I find that very odd indeed.
The trouble is alfred, this investigation seems to be a bottomless purse, and it is the tax payer forking out , for the incompetence of the mccanns, whose rank stupidity and arrogance in leaving their children by themselves, led to Madeleine's disappearance.
Now how about other victim's of crime ?
Don't they get a look in, in your world ?
Or have you, like other mccann supporters i could name, put her on a pedestal above everyone else ?
Since sooner or later the investigation will be put out to grass.
-
The trouble is alfred, this investigation seems to be a bottomless purse, and it is the tax payer forking out , for the incompetence of the mccanns, whose rank stupidity and arrogance in leaving their children by themselves, led to Madeleine's disappearance.
Now how about other victim's of crime ?
Don't they get a look in, in your world ?
Or have you, like other mccann supporters i could name, put her on a pedestal above everyone else ?
Since sooner or later the investigation will be put out to grass.
So - I don't care about Madeleine, yet I've put her on a pedestal have I? Do you see the problem with your logic there...?
-
So - I don't care about Madeleine, yet I've put her on a pedestal have I? Do you see the problem with your logic there...?
In what way do you care about Madeleine ?
Have you searched for her, typing on a keyboard ?
Or is your support for her merely a pretense, to cover your support for the fragrant McCann's ?
and why shouldn't the money have been spent on other victims of crime ?
Why your obsession in supporting the McCann's ?
Who clearly neglected their children and placed their socializing at a higher level.
-
In what way do you care about Madeleine ?
Have you searched for her, typing on a keyboard ?
Or is your support for her merely a pretense, to cover your support for the fragrant McCann's ?
and why shouldn't the money have been spent on other victims of crime ?
Why your obsession in supporting the McCann's ?
Who clearly neglected their children and placed their socializing at a higher level.
I take it from your barrage of deflecting questions that you don't fancy answering my question. That's fine, just ignore my post if you don't want to answer, but expecting me to answer 5 of your questions and ignoring my one is a bit rude IMO.
-
I take it from your barrage of deflecting questions that you don't fancy answering my question. That's fine, just ignore my post if you don't want to answer, but expecting me to answer 5 of your questions and ignoring my one is a bit rude IMO.
Never stopped you before.
Besides I've asked some of those questions before, and you didn't answer them.
In particular, why not spend the money on other victims of crime ?
You do realize Grange is going nowhere, otherwise yoiu wouldn't continue to defend it.
-
Never stopped you before.
Besides I've asked some of those questions before, and you didn't answer them.
In particular, why not spend the money on other victims of crime ?
You do realize Grange is going nowhere, otherwise yoiu wouldn't continue to defend it.
The highlighted question is a bit of a dumb one IMO. Of course the money could have been spent on victims of other crimes but how much of it? How much of the ten million would you have preferred that the Met spent on victims of other crime? How much money is the crime of Madeleine's disappearance worth spending on, in your view? See, unanswerable innit. But of course, this is just you attempting to side-track from the point that I challenged you about which was your illogical leap from me not caring about Madeleine's fate to me putting her on a pedestal above all other victims of crime.
-
If only it had been possible to deal with Madeleine's parents at the beginning. All the inconsistencies could have been examined and the parents could have been cleared of any wrongdoing or arrested. None of the evidence collected at the time proves parental involvement, but neither does it prove their innocence in my opinion.
Why wasn't it possible to deal with Madeleine's parents at the beginning? It would be good if you would provide cites for the reasons.
-
In what way do you care about Madeleine ?
Have you searched for her, typing on a keyboard ?
Or is your support for her merely a pretense, to cover your support for the fragrant McCann's ?
and why shouldn't the money have been spent on other victims of crime ?
Why your obsession in supporting the McCann's ?
Who clearly neglected their children and placed their socializing at a higher level.
You keep on about "other victims of crime" ... would you mind terribly letting us know who they are and give us details of the cases being ignored?
-
There are other advantages to working in close liaison with colleagues from a different country and different cultures which could probably be of benefit to future investigations abroad.
Contacts and networks will have been established and professional developments enhanced.
We know that Scotland Yard have emphasised the fact that there will be no constant update on the investigation as requested and in line with Portuguese practice.
I think your offence at the expenditure is that real culprits are being sought ... and not your culprits of choice.
Exactly. i doubt that this new era of cooperation has ever just been about Madeleine. Rebuilding bridges after the diplomatic fracas over police leaks has quite likely been on the agenda as well. Building contacts and networks, and also sharing best practice, various protocols, learning to somehow work together as efficiently as possible within the bureaucratic constraints and no doubt many other mutually beneficial aspects.
In the previous state of "sensitivities", how could they have collaborated quietly and efficiently on e.g., catching criminal fugitives, drug / people traffickers or even potential terrorists if there was a high risk of leaks to the likes of CdaM?
Although JITs are a technical possibility, they are rare in practice... At some point, the difficulties need to be overcome otherwise the only people who benefit are criminals.
-
http://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/pais/2015-03-13-Policia-inglesa-reuniu-se-com-as-autoridades-portuguesas-sobre-o-caso-Maddie
There has been a working meeting of detectives to discuss Madeleine's case ... so it still appears to be actively being pursued.
I am interested from the point of view of unofficial leaks from within the investigation ... if we hear nothing, I think it will signify that my supposition that the leak has been plugged was correct.
-
Rebelo didn't even stay in England for The Payne Rogatory Interview. Leaks from The PJ, apparently.
And if you think Amaral's Team were supportive then you have been reading a different Trial from the one that I have.
Does the addition of the word 'apparently' signal that you don't really know but possibly read it in some British tabloid ?
As to Amaral's team as they were so 'unsupportive' you will have no trouble providing some examples, will you ?
-
http://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/pais/2015-03-13-Policia-inglesa-reuniu-se-com-as-autoridades-portuguesas-sobre-o-caso-Maddie
There has been a working meeting of detectives to discuss Madeleine's case ... so it still appears to be actively being pursued.
I am interested from the point of view of unofficial leaks from within the investigation ... if we hear nothing, I think it will signify that my supposition that the leak has been plugged was correct.
Seems all possibilities are still on the table.
-
Does the addition of the word 'apparently' signal that you don't really know but possibly read it in some British tabloid ?
As to Amaral's team as they were so 'unsupportive' you will have no trouble providing some examples, will you ?
Only one of them had read his book. And another one didn't know what he was doing there. All on Google.
Oh, and on this Forum. Try "Search."
-
Only one of them had read his book. And another one didn't know what he was doing there. All on Google.
Oh, and on this Forum. Try "Search."
So how can not reading Amaral's book be deemed 'unsupportive' ?
Im not sure what the second part of your post relates to, sorry.
-
Only one of them had read his book. And another one didn't know what he was doing there. All on Google.
Oh, and on this Forum. Try "Search."
Who was it who wanted the hearing to be heard in camera ... because Madeleine might still be alive ... was that Goncalo Amaral's lawyer?
-
Who was it who wanted the hearing to be heard in camera ... because Madeleine might still be alive ... was that Goncalo Amaral's lawyer?
Ah. But which one? I'm afraid I have forgotten.
-
At least we will have a verdict on this case soon.
-
http://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/pais/2015-03-13-Policia-inglesa-reuniu-se-com-as-autoridades-portuguesas-sobre-o-caso-Maddie
There has been a working meeting of detectives to discuss Madeleine's case ... so it still appears to be actively being pursued.
I am interested from the point of view of unofficial leaks from within the investigation ... if we hear nothing, I think it will signify that my supposition that the leak has been plugged was correct.
I've been wondering about that as well.;)
-
Who was it who wanted the hearing to be heard in camera ... because Madeleine might still be alive ... was that Goncalo Amaral's lawyer?
A man of consummate compassion then I'm sure you'll agree. Her parents, on the other hand, wanted the proceedings made public, a decision it would seem, that allowed their son Sean to hear the intricacies of his sister's likely demise on the way to school.
Bit of an own goal there Brietta.
-
Let's please keep to what's known and avoid speculations. Even now, nearly eight years on, it isn't even known for sure if anyone was involved in Madeleine's disappearance and if there was, to what extent it represented a purely criminal act.
There are still several possibilities as to what became of Madeleine so please keep this in mind when posting comments. TY
-
Why wasn't it possible to deal with Madeleine's parents at the beginning? It would be good if you would provide cites for the reasons.
This is an answer to Eleanor. If you read the posts you will see why i said it. 8(>((
-
A man of consummate compassion then I'm sure you'll agree. Her parents, on the other hand, wanted the proceedings made public, a decision it would seem, that allowed their son Sean to hear the intricacies of his sister's likely demise on the way to school.
Bit of an own goal there Brietta.
one of your most ridiculous posts
-
one of your most ridiculous posts
I'll say.
Do we have a cite for this "compassionate" man's reasons for wishing to conduct the court case in private?
Does the judge in this case therefore lack compassion by refusing the request?
-
I'll say.
Do we have a cite for this "compassionate" man's reasons for wishing to conduct the court case in private?
Does the judge in this case therefore lack compassion by refusing the request?
conduct the case in private after the book was published on the net..telling everyone that kate and Gerry...the twins parents were a couple of common criminals...the judge seems to agree that's defamation..we wait to see what damages she awards
-
I'll say.
Do we have a cite for this "compassionate" man's reasons for wishing to conduct the court case in private?
Does the judge in this case therefore lack compassion by refusing the request?
It seems, according to Brietta, the reason for having the case heard in private was in case Madeleine is still alive. If you need a cite best ask her Alfie.
As to your second question as we don't know the judge's reason for refusing the request it's impossible to say.
You have to wonder though why the McCanns wanted the hearing to be public when they claim they are trying to protect the twins from hearing Amaral's thesis. Perhaps you can explain it to me Alfie !
-
maddie is either alive or dead and we will not know until we observe her...don't take my word for it...
Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.[1] It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat which may be simultaneously both alive and dead,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement) in the course of developing the thought experiment.
-
It seems, according to Brietta, the reason for having the case heard in private was in case Madeleine is still alive. If you need a cite best ask her Alfie.
As to your second question as we don't know the judge's reason for refusing the request it's impossible to say.
You have to wonder though why the McCanns wanted the hearing to be public when they claim they are trying to protect the twins from hearing Amaral's thesis. Perhaps you can explain it to me Alfie !
Still wanting to criticise the parents when you claim your concern is maddie
-
It seems, according to Brietta, the reason for having the case heard in private was in case Madeleine is still alive. If you need a cite best ask her Alfie.
As to your second question as we don't know the judge's reason for refusing the request it's impossible to say.
You have to wonder though why the McCanns wanted the hearing to be public when they claim they are trying to protect the twins from hearing Amaral's thesis. Perhaps you can explain it to me Alfie !
I can't and don't speak for the McCanns Faithlilly. I can speculate but then I'd be asked for a cite, so pointless to do so, eh?
-
I can't and don't speak for the McCanns Faithlilly. I can speculate but then I'd be asked for a cite, so pointless to do so, eh?
An opinion doesn't need a cite Alfie. I'm simply asking for your take on it.
-
An opinion doesn't need a cite Alfie. I'm simply asking for your take on it.
my honest answer is - I don't know, but I do believe the McCanns care about their children, unlike you who seems to be of the firm opinion that the McCanns always put their own concerns first. if it was me I would have wanted the case heard publicly to show that I had nothing to hide, and would have sat my kids down beforehand to explain what was going on and what they were likely to hear on the news and in the playground. I don't suppose the McCanns' motives and actions were too dissimilar to that, unless you know otherwise? of course, if the deeply compassionate Amaral had actually expended some of his deep compassion on thinking about the ramifications of writing his book and how they might affect the McCanns' children perhaps he would have kept his quill out of the ink pot in the first place.
-
The McCanns would have been castigated for keeping it secret, no matter who asked for it. And surely no one believes that Amaral or his Lawyer actually cared about Madeleine. Madeleine is unlikely to know what is going on. And her abductors won't be sitting her down in front of a computer to find out.
To me this was a hideous piece of hypocrisy, and very much an own goal, which is probably why he got the sack. But possibly all the better to spin it when Amaral loses. But we have all seen the process now, presuming that The Juristas are to be believed.
Sadly, the twins will have to live with this, but then they have always had to. Hiding things won't help them. My parents hid things from me which I will now never get any answers to. And I am still very cross about that.
-
my honest answer is - I don't know, but I do believe the McCanns care about their children, unlike you who seems to be of the firm opinion that the McCanns always put their own concerns first. if it was me I would have wanted the case heard publicly to show that I had nothing to hide, and would have sat my kids down beforehand to explain what was going on and what they were likely to hear on the news and in the playground. I don't suppose the McCanns' motives and actions were too dissimilar to that, unless you know otherwise? of course, if the deeply compassionate Amaral had actually expended some of his deep compassion on thinking about the ramifications of writing his book and how they might affect the McCanns' children perhaps he would have kept his quill out of the ink pot in the first place.
I too believe the McCanns care for their children although I do also believe, on occasion, self-preservation is their motivating factor. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive as you do. It does seem obvious though, from Kate's testimony, that the McCanns didn't sit the children down as you would to explain what was going on or Sean wouldn't have heard about Amaral's thesis on the school bus. A rather glaring omission I'm sure you'll agree especiallyy when they would have been aware because they were against the trial being held in camera that the media would be reporting on it.
-
Should a Bus Driver be listening to the radio while driving children to school? I think The McCanns can be forgiven for missing that possibility.
-
Should a Bus Driver be listening to the radio while driving children to school? I think The McCanns can be forgiven for missing that possibility.
If it ever happened. Wasn't it a hearsay report of what somebody told somebody else?
-
Should a Bus Driver be listening to the radio while driving children to school? I think The McCanns can be forgiven for missing that possibility.
So it's now the bus driver's fault is it ?
It was the McCann's choice to have the hearing made public. The least they could have done was to gently prepare the twins for the reporting that was to come.
-
I too believe the McCanns care for their children although I do also believe, on occasion, self-preservation is their motivating factor. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive as you do. It does seem obvious though, from Kate's testimony, that the McCanns didn't sit the children down as you would to explain what was going on or Sean wouldn't have heard about Amaral's thesis on the school bus. A rather glaring omission I'm sure you'll agree especiallyy when they would have been aware because they were against the trial being held in camera that the media would be reporting on it.
So - are you saying that if the court proceedings had been held in secret the fact that there was a court case between the McCanns and Amaral and the reasons for it would not have been reported at all by the media? Are you holding the McCanns responsible for any damage caused to the McCann children by Amaral's book? Because it wouldn't surprise me a jot - blaming the victims is a typical trait of the McCann "sceptic".
Do you have children Faithlilly? If you did you would know that you can explain something to a child, hope and believe that they have understood it, but then subsequently realise that actually they haven't fully grasped what you have tried to explain to them in the best way that you could. I'm not saying that is what happened here, but it's possible I suppose.
-
So it's now the bus driver's fault is it ?
It was the McCann's choice to have the hearing made public. The least they could have done was to gently prepare the twins for the reporting that was to come.
I expect that they did prepare the twins, don't you think.
And Bus Drivers should not be listening to the radio while driving children around.
And actually, I don't think it was the choice of The McCanns to have the hearings made public. That would have been the choice of the Judge.
Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.
-
I expect that they did prepare the twins, don't you think.
And Bus Drivers should not be listening to the radio while driving children around.
And actually, I don't think it was the choice of The McCanns to have the hearings made public. That would have been the choice of the Judge.
Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.
Good point - do we have court notes on the McCanns' arguments for a public hearing? They must surely exist if that is indeed what they were pushing for....
-
I expect that they did prepare the twins, don't you think.
And Bus Drivers should not be listening to the radio while driving children around.
And actually, I don't think it was the choice of The McCanns to have the hearings made public. That would have been the choice of the Judge.
Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.
And of course you can prove it was the judge's decision. Can't you ?
-
And of course you can prove it was the judge's decision. Can't you ?
Can you prove that it was the McCanns who fought Amaral's request to hold the proceedings in camera? Most things that happen in court are the judge's decision, even the McCanns' power does not extend THAT far!
Proceedings were held up in Lisbon when Amaral petitioned to have the hearings held in camera, but that was rejected by the judge.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/mccann-libel-trial-opens
-
And of course you can prove it was the judge's decision. Can't you ?
Who generally makes decisions in a court of law?
-
And of course you can prove it was the judge's decision. Can't you ?
She refused the request made by Amaral's Lawyer, so she must have had something to do with it. Or do you think that The McCanns are running that Court Room?
-
Can you prove that it was the McCanns who fought Amaral's request to hold the proceedings in camera? Most things that happen in court are the judge's decision, even the McCanns' power does not extend THAT far!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/mccann-libel-trial-opens
That's your proof, a puff piece in the Guardian ?
-
That's your proof, a puff piece in the Guardian ?
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* You really are priceless, a wholly predictable response. Now, let's see YOUR proof that the McCanns control what goes on in court and twisted the judge's arm into making the trial a public one. I await with baited breath...
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* You really are priceless, a wholly predictable response. Now, let's see YOUR proof that the McCanns control what goes on in court and twisted the judge's arm into making the trial a public one. I await with baited breath...
I don't think for one minute the McCanns 'control what goes on on court' and have never said so. They could however have through their lawyer petitioned against Amaral's request. Do you have any proof they didn't ?
-
I don't think for one minute the McCanns 'control what goes on on court' and have never said so. They could however have through their lawyer petitioned against Amaral's request. Do you have any proof they didn't ?
Do you have any proof that they did? It is you making the accusation, you prove it. Of you go now, you have contacts who made it their business to attend court, go and ask them.
-
I don't think for one minute the McCanns 'control what goes on on court' and have never said so. They could however have through their lawyer petitioned against Amaral's request. Do you have any proof they didn't ?
celestial teapot alert....has anyone noticed how many sceptic responses are of this nature...sure sign of a lost argument
-
I don't think for one minute the McCanns 'control what goes on on court' and have never said so. They could however have through their lawyer petitioned against Amaral's request. Do you have any proof they didn't ?
Your original comment was this:
"And of course you can prove it was the judge's decision. Can't you ?"
&%+((£
-
Look now. This is all very funny, but could we get back On Topic before I get the sack.
All comments pertaining to me getting the sack will be deleted.
-
Do you have any proof that they did? It is you making the accusation, you prove it. Of you go now, you have contacts who made it their business to attend court, go and ask them.
Or indeed appeal the judge's decision as they did when she refused them leave to make a personal statement. That's if they felt the emotional protection of their was paramount.
-
If it ever happened. Wasn't it a hearsay report of what somebody told somebody else?
Silly me! I thought talking about Amaral's Thesis in/on the UK meeja was verboten?
Anyway a bunch of school kids on a bus would be plugged into iPods, tablets or lozenges would they not?
-
Silly me! I thought talking about Amaral's Thesis in/on the UK meeja was verboten?
Anyway a bunch of school kids on a bus would be plugged into iPods, tablets or lozenges would they not?
I would think so - certainly unlikely to be eagerly listening to the the drivers choice. @)(++(*
-
Silly me! I thought talking about Amaral's Thesis in/on the UK meeja was verboten?
Anyway a bunch of school kids on a bus would be plugged into iPods, tablets or lozenges would they not?
Primary school children are not permitted to take electronic devices into school.
-
Or indeed appeal the judge's decision as they did when she refused them leave to make a personal statement. That's if they felt the emotional protection of their was paramount.
There'd been enough delay and prevarication already by that point without prolonging the agony any further with an appeal. The fact is you have failed to demonstrate that the McCanns fought to have the trial conducted in public. It was Amaral who fought to have it held in camera. Anything else is in your imagination.
-
There'd been enough delay and prevarication already by that point without prolonging the agony any further with an appeal. The fact is you have failed to demonstrate that the McCanns fought to have the trial conducted in public. It was Amaral who fought to have it held in camera. Anything else is in your imagination.
What isn't my imagination is that Amaral DID fight to have the trial heard 'in camera' to protect Madeleine ' if she was still alive', an outcome her parents didn't seem to fussed about.
-
Primary school children are not permitted to take electronic devices into school.
All schools or some schools?
The only one I can find that has its policy on that tinternet is near the school for young Knights Templar that J-P was referring to the other day (in jest I hope).
The driver is permitted to have the radio or telly on at moderate volume.
Dashed unsporting of the BBC to have a talk of Amarals Thesis though.
http://www.leics.gov.uk/driverguidelines_08.pdf
-
What isn't my imagination is that Amaral DID fight to have the trial heard 'in camera' to protect Madeleine ' if she was still alive', an outcome her parents didn't seem to fussed about.
Amaral was more interested in protecting his own reputation than protecting maddie....His book says she died in the apartment so isn't this something of a contradiction
-
What isn't my imagination is that Amaral DID fight to have the trial heard 'in camera' to protect Madeleine ' if she was still alive', an outcome her parents didn't seem to fussed about.
"to protect Madeleine" from what? Amaral staked his entire reputation on the thesis that the child was already dead having been pumped full of parent-administered calpol, deep frozen, unthawed and shoved in a hole by said parents. How did holding the trial in private aim to protect her, in his view? Did he explain?? &%+((£
-
We have strayed Off Topic.
Please adhere to the topic of the thread "Have most people given up on finding Madeleine". thank you.