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: Alfie on April 27, 2017, 06:47:18 PM
Title: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on April 27, 2017, 06:47:18 PM
NEW INFORMATION on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is set to be made public in a brand new Sky1 documentary.
So what is the documentary covering? What is set to be revealed? And when is it on?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on April 28, 2017, 08:30:42 AM
Not quite accurate as per usual;
The McCanns were cleared by investigators in Portugal who declared they had exhausted all avenues in the case. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3419280/searching-for-madeleine-mccann-sky-one-home-office-report.
Martin Brunt, Sky News’ crime correspondent, will be revealing what was discovered in a secret Home Office report connected to the youngster’s disappearance. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/3419280/searching-for-madeleine-mccann-sky-one-home-office-report/
Who gave him that? Not the Home Office if it's secret. Unless it's Gamble's scoping report, bits of which have been leaked before.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2017, 05:38:34 PM
ITt will be interesting to see what Brunt...a journalist I admire...comes up with. If its about the police investigation it amy well be about the portuguese side of things...he was obviously fed false information
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on April 28, 2017, 05:57:55 PM
ITt will be interesting to see what Brunt...a journalist I admire...comes up with. If its about the police investigation it amy well be about the portuguese side of things...he was obviously fed false information
I don't have SKY, so I'll have to rely on second hand reports. I'm sorry I will miss Heri's contribution.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on April 28, 2017, 06:08:36 PM
I don't have SKY, so I'll have to rely on second hand reports. I'm sorry I will miss Heri's contribution.
Same here.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 28, 2017, 06:43:22 PM
Well you Brietta and I don't have Sky so unless we go into the neighbours to watch like we did with the old King's funeral ................ ? I have 70 channels of crap on freeview it would be rather foolish to pay good cash money for more of the same.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on April 28, 2017, 06:47:24 PM
Sky News is on Freebies, whether by satellite or otherwise.
So no escaping Heriberto's appearance, if there is one.
I wonder how is UFO debunking is going these days. 8**8:/:
It's on Sky1 - is that the same as Sky News?
I for one am going to predict that Heri comes across as a somewhat more sane individual than a certain American Criminal Profiler did on Aussie TV the other day....
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on April 28, 2017, 06:56:01 PM
I for one am going to predict that Heri comes across as a somewhat more sane individual than a certain American Criminal Profiler did on Aussie TV the other day....
I lay odds it will appear on Sky News as well.
Let's not forget uploads to the internet.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on April 28, 2017, 10:19:35 PM
Well you Brietta and I don't have Sky so unless we go into the neighbours to watch like we did with the old King's funeral ................ ? I have 70 channels of crap on freeview it would be rather foolish to pay good cash money for more of the same.
I don't have any television at all. And can't even begin to wonder for why I should.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on April 28, 2017, 11:05:27 PM
Isn't it Panorama Heri has contributed to? A cut above Sky I would say... 8(>((
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 28, 2017, 11:13:33 PM
Maybe they'll have Clarence as guest presenter, just to make sure they stay 'on message'
Another myth is that CM controls what the media can or cannot say. This particular myth was born when the word 'monitored' was translated as 'checked' and then wrongly re-translated as 'controlled'.
Monitored = checked.
Checked - can mean checked as in 'monitoring' or checked as in controlling (a horse for instance can be controlled by checking it - i.e. pulling it up)
Checked - was then re-translated choosing the wrong meaning in this context i.e. 'controlled' instead of 'monitored'. IMO
IIRC The same translation error appeared in a witness statement by one of the waiters - who noted that people left the table to 'control' their children - when obviously he meant 'check'.
AIMHO
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on April 29, 2017, 10:18:28 AM
Another myth is that CM controls what the media can or cannot say. This particular myth was born when the word 'monitored' was translated as 'checked' and then wrongly re-translated as 'controlled'.
Monitored = checked.
Checked - can mean checked as in 'monitoring' or checked as in controlling (a horse for instance can be controlled by checking it - i.e. pulling it up)
Checked - was then re-translated choosing the wrong meaning in this context i.e. 'controlled' instead of 'monitored'. IMO
IIRC The same translation error appeared in a witness statement by one of the waiters - who noted that people left the table to 'control' their children - when obviously he meant 'check'.
AIMHO
Mitchell, is a media manipulator.
That is what he is employed to do.
FEED STORIES TO THE MEDIA.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 10:35:39 AM
the aimis to keep maadie in the spotlight hes doing a great job
Bringing loads of cash to pay off Amaral.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on April 29, 2017, 11:58:54 AM
REMINDER RE FORUM RULES
As the tenth anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance approaches with the inevitable media interest, the forum will undoubtedly attract a lot more guest readers. Please bear this in mind when commenting and above all please adhere to the rules at all times. In particular, please avoid going off topic as such posts will be removed.
Have a great bank holiday weekend! 8((()*/
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on April 29, 2017, 12:01:19 PM
Who cares, other than those who have to bear the cost ?
it seems people afe discussing it ...including you...care probably isnt the right word...interested is better...so as you posted it shows you are interested
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: jassi on April 29, 2017, 02:10:10 PM
it seems people afe discussing it ...including you...care probably isnt the right word...interested is better...so as you posted it shows you are interested
Indeed, that must apply to us all who post here. How can any of us have other than an interest, although I observe that some seem to have a far greater interest than others.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 02:20:22 PM
Indeed, that must apply to us all who post here. How can any of us have other than an interest, although I observe that some seem to have a far greater interest than others.
thats why I corrected your use of the word cared. Im certainly interested in the case..is that a crime as well
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on April 29, 2017, 02:49:34 PM
Just heard elsewhere that brunt is hosting the Sky Documentary.
Has Brunt got any shame at all ?
You could not make this up.
Quite disgusting.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 03:12:21 PM
BRUNT of course disappeared from public view after Ms. Leyland died for several weeks.
It is a pity he returned.
How he dare host this program is beyond disgusting.
Can we put this 'outrage' to bed please.
Martin Brunt was simply able to trace Brenda Leyland from contacts she had initiated with him via twitter. He was doing his job when he interviewed her within his organisation's guidelines.
Do you call to mind Sonia Poulton turning up on Kate McCann's doorstep ... would your outrage have extended to her had she tipped Kate over the edge for a video that was never to see the light of day.
Why Sky's Martin Brunt was right to investigate the story of McCann Twitter 'troll' Brenda Leyland Opinion
By Chris Boffey-07 October 2014 09:39am Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government.
When Martin Brunt, the Sky crime correspondent, interviewed Brenda Leyland about her nearly 5,000 tweets which formed part of a vitriolic campaign against the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, she declared that she was doing nothing illegal.
After her death we may never know, but what we are sure of is the police had identified Leyland as being part of an online trolling campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann and were investigating.
Brunt, the foremost crime correspondent in broadcasting with an enviable contacts book, discovered that Leyland was behind the anti-McCann Twitter account @sweepyface and confronted her on camera and later interviewed her in her own home.
In his report, Brunt did not identify Leyland, nor give out her address, which was uncomfortably close to the McCanns; he pixillated out her car registration number and put her Twitter campaign in context by saying it was by no means the worst.
When he spoke to her off camera he and Leyland had a straightforward interview where she told him she had questions for the McCanns about their behaviour and believed the British press was failing in its job. She hoped that she had not broken the law.
Up until Leyland was found dead in a hotel in Leicester on Saturday, Sky and Brunt had received few complaints about the story, except a small number from the anti-McCann faction. Brunt had legitimately followed the path of the story, the catalyst being a BBC interview with Gerry McCann in which he said online trolls should be investigated and charged by police. Brunt discovered the extent of police inquiries and the identity of @sweepyface and acted appropriately after following guidelines laid down by Sky’s lawyers.
Now, of course, Brunt is the centre of the story. He is getting the abuse, complaints have been made to Ofcom and there is a Facebook campaign to get him sacked. Sky is saying very little and Brunt has been told to keep quiet and keep his head down.
Also saying nothing is Gerry McCann, who had a lot to say about responsible journalism and online abuse campaigns after he won a £55,000 libel victory against The Sunday Times.
There is no doubt that the McCanns have been repeated victims of poor and shoddy journalism following the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal, but in his interview Mr McCann appeared to suggest that the media had no right to even question him or his wife about the night their little girl went missing.
He is wrong. The media is given information; reporters are tasked with finding out if that information is right or wrong. If the story does not stand up it should be binned, not written as rumour, or something that has appeared online but slapped on the untrue spike. But it should be investigated.
So where does Gerry McCann stand on the Sky/Brunt report? The story was true, it was legitimate and proportional but tragically a woman, who sent almost 5,000 tweets in a year about the McCanns, is now dead. Does he believe that the media had no right to discover who were the online abusers potentially breaking the law by harassing his family?
McCann has a legitimate view in calling for the full implementation of media regulation as suggested by Lord Leveson and there are many people in and out of the media industry who believe that Ipso, the industry’s complaints board, is the Press Complaints Commission in another guise. But we cannot have a media that does not investigate and hold to account. That would be the death of a free press.
Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government
This article is about: UK, Brenda Leyland, Sky, Trolling, Twitter, Media http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/10/07/why-skys-martin-brunt-was-right-investigate-story-mccann-twitter-troll-brenda
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on April 29, 2017, 05:40:08 PM
Just heard elsewhere that brunt is hosting the Sky Documentary.
Has Brunt got any shame at all ?
You could not make this up.
Quite disgusting.
Heard from elsewhere?! It's in the Sun article which kicks off this thread, clear as day. Why else have we all been slagging off Brunt for the last 24 hours?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 29, 2017, 05:56:17 PM
Heard from elsewhere?! It's in the Sun article which kicks off this thread, clear as day. Why else have we all been slagging off Brunt for the last 24 hours?
Bring back Brunt!
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on April 29, 2017, 06:01:11 PM
Heard from elsewhere?! It's in the Sun article which kicks off this thread, clear as day. Why else have we all been slagging off Brunt for the last 24 hours?
It was on Sky Alfie. 8)--))
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 29, 2017, 07:09:20 PM
Martin Brunt was simply able to trace Brenda Leyland from contacts she had initiated with him via twitter. He was doing his job when he interviewed her within his organisation's guidelines.
Do you call to mind Sonia Poulton turning up on Kate McCann's doorstep ... would your outrage have extended to her had she tipped Kate over the edge for a video that was never to see the light of day.
Why Sky's Martin Brunt was right to investigate the story of McCann Twitter 'troll' Brenda Leyland Opinion
By Chris Boffey-07 October 2014 09:39am Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government.
When Martin Brunt, the Sky crime correspondent, interviewed Brenda Leyland about her nearly 5,000 tweets which formed part of a vitriolic campaign against the parents of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, she declared that she was doing nothing illegal.
After her death we may never know, but what we are sure of is the police had identified Leyland as being part of an online trolling campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann and were investigating.
Brunt, the foremost crime correspondent in broadcasting with an enviable contacts book, discovered that Leyland was behind the anti-McCann Twitter account @sweepyface and confronted her on camera and later interviewed her in her own home.
In his report, Brunt did not identify Leyland, nor give out her address, which was uncomfortably close to the McCanns; he pixillated out her car registration number and put her Twitter campaign in context by saying it was by no means the worst.
When he spoke to her off camera he and Leyland had a straightforward interview where she told him she had questions for the McCanns about their behaviour and believed the British press was failing in its job. She hoped that she had not broken the law.
Up until Leyland was found dead in a hotel in Leicester on Saturday, Sky and Brunt had received few complaints about the story, except a small number from the anti-McCann faction. Brunt had legitimately followed the path of the story, the catalyst being a BBC interview with Gerry McCann in which he said online trolls should be investigated and charged by police. Brunt discovered the extent of police inquiries and the identity of @sweepyface and acted appropriately after following guidelines laid down by Sky’s lawyers.
Now, of course, Brunt is the centre of the story. He is getting the abuse, complaints have been made to Ofcom and there is a Facebook campaign to get him sacked. Sky is saying very little and Brunt has been told to keep quiet and keep his head down.
Also saying nothing is Gerry McCann, who had a lot to say about responsible journalism and online abuse campaigns after he won a £55,000 libel victory against The Sunday Times.
There is no doubt that the McCanns have been repeated victims of poor and shoddy journalism following the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal, but in his interview Mr McCann appeared to suggest that the media had no right to even question him or his wife about the night their little girl went missing.
He is wrong. The media is given information; reporters are tasked with finding out if that information is right or wrong. If the story does not stand up it should be binned, not written as rumour, or something that has appeared online but slapped on the untrue spike. But it should be investigated.
So where does Gerry McCann stand on the Sky/Brunt report? The story was true, it was legitimate and proportional but tragically a woman, who sent almost 5,000 tweets in a year about the McCanns, is now dead. Does he believe that the media had no right to discover who were the online abusers potentially breaking the law by harassing his family?
McCann has a legitimate view in calling for the full implementation of media regulation as suggested by Lord Leveson and there are many people in and out of the media industry who believe that Ipso, the industry’s complaints board, is the Press Complaints Commission in another guise. But we cannot have a media that does not investigate and hold to account. That would be the death of a free press.
Chris Boffey is a former news editor of the Observer, Sunday Telegraph and the Mirror and onetime special adviser to the Labour government
This article is about: UK, Brenda Leyland, Sky, Trolling, Twitter, Media http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/10/07/why-skys-martin-brunt-was-right-investigate-story-mccann-twitter-troll-brenda
The bit I have bolded is the bit I find despicable. Confronted on camera aka door-stepped. I saw it, and I do not care whether it was within Sky guidelines. It was despicable.
I got virtual-reality door-stepped by The Mirror, in a despicable manner. Confrontational, IMO yes. Accurate, IMO no.
I have already talked to media here (Luz) re the 10th anniversary. They were polite and professional. I was asked if it was OK for them to take stills and video of me. I declined. They accepted this and we moved on. I know I am not central to the material they were collecting, and in the exchange, I learned a considerable amount about what they had as their focus. Since they were professional and courteous to me, I will not be revealing their details or agenda until they go public. Confrontational, IMO no. Accurate, hopefully but I only have a limited impression of how they will proceed.
I have another media exchange stacked up. On this one it happens to be I am dancing with the Devil, but needs must. This contact has been so far professional and courteous, and there is no suggestion of door-stepping. I have no idea of the proposed agenda. I might get sand-bagged, but who knows. Again, I am not going to provide details until publication occurs.
I did not follow the Brenda Leyland development. I have seen a fair number of her tweets, and IMO a number were despicable. I do not consider that 2 wrongs make a right, and for the record, I consider Martin Brunt's door-stepping to be despicable. And for Chris Boffey to defend it is also despicable, IMO.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 07:14:30 PM
I dont see Brunts behaviour as despicable...its a matter of opinion
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 29, 2017, 07:22:07 PM
comparing brunts actions to slavery shows how ridiculously pathetic your argument is....
For much of the time that slavery was legal, it was considered appropriate. Slavery was abolished because it was abominable.
Confrontational door-stepping is a 2017 phenomenon that should be abolished. Even supposed 'valid' targets such as politicians should be free from this obnoxious practice.
Perhaps you think people should be free to visit Rothley and indulge in some confrontational door-stepping of the McCanns. Personally, I would condemn such behaviour as odious.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2017, 08:01:08 PM
i personally think what sky uk and martin brunt did to brenda was a disgrace i didnt know brenda but as someone who has had severe anxiety and depression among a host of other things all my life i wouldnt of been able to cope either to pick on someone with a known mental illnesss is a disgrace a sky news australia reporter would have been fired here for behaviour like martin brunts like it or not the world doesnt have to pander to the mcanns they are adults maddie was a child and everybody around the world is allowed to condem them for their lack of parenting
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 08:16:26 PM
For much of the time that slavery was legal, it was considered appropriate. Slavery was abolished because it was abominable.
Confrontational door-stepping is a 2017 phenomenon that should be abolished. Even supposed 'valid' targets such as politicians should be free from this obnoxious practice.
Perhaps you think people should be free to visit Rothley and indulge in some confrontational door-stepping of the McCanns. Personally, I would condemn such behaviour as odious.
comparing slavery to doorstepping once is ridiculous...to do it twice is ridiculously bizarre Doorstepping is perfectly legal....we have a free press
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Erngath on April 29, 2017, 08:20:30 PM
i personally think what sky uk and martin brunt did to brenda was a disgrace i didnt know brenda but as someone who has had severe anxiety and depression among a host of other things all my life i wouldnt of been able to cope either to pick on someone with a known mental illnesss is a disgrace a sky news australia reporter would have been fired here for behaviour like martin brunts like it or not the world doesnt have to pander to the mcanns they are adults maddie was a child and everybody around the world is allowed to condem them for their lack of parenting
Brenda had attempted to take her own life long before her encounter with Martin Brunt. She was estranged from her son and chose to end her life on his birthday. This estrangement must have caused her deep unhappiness and imo she found camaraderie and a cause within the sceptic following. I think it is a shame that her memory is used on this forum to bolster the obvious dislike of Martin Brunt.I am sure he is well aware now that she was a vulnerable, sad and troubled lady.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
Brenda had attempted to take her own life long before her encounter with Martin Brunt. She was estranged from her son and chose to end her life on his birthday. This estrangement must have caused her deep unhappiness and imo she found camaraderie and a cause within the sceptic following. I think it is a shame that her memory is used on this forum to bolster the obvious dislike of Martin Brunt.I am sure he is well aware now that she was a vulnerable, sad and troubled lady.
absolutely correct
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on April 29, 2017, 08:24:59 PM
Brenda had attempted to take her own life long before her encounter with Martin Brunt. She was estranged from her son and chose to end her life on his birthday. This estrangement must have caused her deep unhappiness and imo she found camaraderie and a cause within the sceptic following. I think it is a shame that her memory is used on this forum to bolster the obvious dislike of Martin Brunt.I am sure he is well aware now that she was a vulnerable, sad and troubled lady.
So why didn't he and Sky check out her background ?
It is self-evident, that they thought she was an easy target.
It was up to the police to investigate her.
..and if those on here who support 'door-stepping', then they are saying anyone is a potential target
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2017, 08:27:17 PM
If she was suspected of criminal action, it was a police matter.
What Brenda Leyland did was wrong, but others were doing the same.
The question remains, why did Sky, and their reporter single her out.
Typical Brunt, he goes after hapless insecure women and old age pensioners in order to create sensationalism. The guys a joke but then this is a Murdoch TV news organisation we are talking about who thought nothing of tapping people's phones for financial gain. The very sad part about it is that Leveson didn't rein them in.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2017, 09:35:46 PM
Typical Brunt, he goes after hapless insecure women and old age pensioners. The guys a joke!
davel says brunt did nothing wrong any non biased person seees exactly what brunt did wrong it shows davel only cares about the mcanns imo and i think he is closer to them then he says he is ...
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 09:39:44 PM
davel says brunt did nothing wrong any non biased person seees exactly what brunt did wrong it shows davel only cares about the mcanns imo and i think he is closer to them then he says he is ...
stupid post ad hom reported...it seems posters are not allowed to have an opinion
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on April 29, 2017, 09:40:29 PM
davel says brunt did nothing wrong any non biased person seees exactly what brunt did wrong it shows davel only cares about the mcanns imo and i think he is closer to them then he says he is ...
Have you noticed how many people have left Sky News recently. I think more goes on there than the public realise.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2017, 09:41:46 PM
Brenda had attempted to take her own life long before her encounter with Martin Brunt. She was estranged from her son and chose to end her life on his birthday. This estrangement must have caused her deep unhappiness and imo she found camaraderie and a cause within the sceptic following. I think it is a shame that her memory is used on this forum to bolster the obvious dislike of Martin Brunt.I am sure he is well aware now that she was a vulnerable, sad and troubled lady.
All the more reason he shouldn't have done what he did without carrying out some very basic background checks to ensure his target wasn't a vulnerable woman living alone. What Brunt did was despicable, cowardly and whats more he now knows it!
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on April 29, 2017, 09:46:57 PM
brunt was simply doing his job and did nothing illegal
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2017, 09:48:31 PM
All the more reason he shouldn't have done what he did without carrying out some very basic background checks to ensure his target wasn't a vulnerable woman living alone.
also the well known forum/forumers who did the dossier shouldnt of taken the law into their own hands which they did
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on April 29, 2017, 09:51:16 PM
No doubt we will all have plenty to report after the Sky documentary.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on April 29, 2017, 09:53:27 PM
'They also confirmed they would be appealing against the latest judgement against them in an eight-year libel battle with former detective Goncalo Amaral.'
That should prove interesting as the case is over in Portugal.
Meanwhile any doubt that Sky would be plying the McCann line is clearly shown in this article that they are supporting them 100%.
' The couple also attacked the thousands of internet trolls who have criticised them over the years, largely for leaving their three children asleep while they dined with friends nearby that night.
Madeleine McCann on May 3 - the day she went missing from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal
Madeleine's parents say they dreaded the 10th anniversary of her disappearance Mrs McCann said: "I think it has been shocking... that aspect of human nature that I hadn't really encountered before. '
The troll word emerges again. No doubt linked to the dossier.
Have the McCann's forgotten, it is their action in leaving their children by themselves and in insecure accomodation, with infrequent checks, whilst they WINED AND DINED, for 5 nights in a row.
it was an remains INEXCUSABLE BEHAVIOUR.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2017, 09:17:57 AM
'They also confirmed they would be appealing against the latest judgement against them in an eight-year libel battle with former detective Goncalo Amaral.'
That should prove interesting as the case is over in Portugal.
Meanwhile any doubt that Sky would be plying the McCann line is clearly shown in this article that they are supporting them 100%.
' The couple also attacked the thousands of internet trolls who have criticised them over the years, largely for leaving their three children asleep while they dined with friends nearby that night.
Madeleine McCann on May 3 - the day she went missing from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal
Madeleine's parents say they dreaded the 10th anniversary of her disappearance Mrs McCann said: "I think it has been shocking... that aspect of human nature that I hadn't really encountered before. '
The troll word emerges again. No doubt linked to the dossier.
Have the McCann's forgotten, it is their action in leaving their children by themselves and in insecure accomodation, with infrequent checks, whilst they WINED AND DINED, for 5 nights in a row.
it was an remains INEXCUSABLE BEHAVIOUR.
kates own mother wnated to throttle her i think that says it all dont you??
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on April 30, 2017, 09:25:14 AM
It matters not a jot. I have now watched the clip, and it is clear it was artificial. 8((()*/
artifificial...they are being interviewed...they are not professional actors......thats why it doesnt look normal...its a simple as that...its very hard to relax in front of cameras
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2017, 05:01:00 PM
artifificial...they are being interviewed...they are not professional actors......thats why it doesnt look normal...its a simple as that...its very hard to relax in front of cameras
Read and repent.
I did not say they were artificial.
I said it was artificial.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 30, 2017, 05:08:02 PM
you are continually posting off topic...why should I complain...I dont expect John to change the rules because I dont like them...his forum...his rules...no problem for me....now try and get back on topic
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 30, 2017, 05:58:06 PM
as i have said the mccanns have tremnedous earning power
Not much of it seems to stick. It's as though they are a conduit through which the ackers flow on the way to Portuguese courts and lawyers. They've done their bit for the Portuguese economy I guess.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: barrier on April 30, 2017, 06:58:17 PM
Not much of it seems to stick. It's as though they are a conduit through which the ackers flow on the way to Portuguese courts and lawyers. They've done their bit for the Portuguese economy I guess.
they ahve raised millions and very little has gone taht way.
I think they should statrt to keep some for themselves and the twins
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on April 30, 2017, 07:20:10 PM
In regard to the fund used to pay his legal expenses, I believe it said on his site, any excess would go to charity.
No, I won't bother. I don't tend to worry over about how other people spend their money. Once someone earns or is given money, then it is their business how it is spent. Surely all the money in his legal fund will be excess.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: jassi on April 30, 2017, 07:36:56 PM
No, I won't bother. I don't tend to worry over about how other people spend their money. Once someone earns or is given money, then it is their business how it is spent. Surely all the money in his legal fund will be excess.
Good for you. I don't bother, either.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Erngath on April 30, 2017, 07:40:37 PM
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 02, 2017, 06:59:04 PM
This programme is on tonight. Of course everyone here will be boycotting it as Martin Brunt is the anti-anti-christ but I was wondering (and this is probably a silly question) - is one able to buy this programme as a one off to watch through Youview or do you have to have a monthly subscription? I
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 02, 2017, 07:16:34 PM
I don't have sky or buy any trash celebs mags or anything owned by Murdoch.. I just find it repulsive them making money from a missing child- they have no real agenda to find the child or they would offer 3 million quid for information to where Maddie is and what happened to her. Same for the paents spending millions on their reputation management and lawyers fees, without even offering all they had to get news about her... say a lot does that. I would bankrupt myself just to know what happened to my baby.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 02, 2017, 07:20:23 PM
I don't have sky or buy any trash celebs mags or anything owned by Murdoch.. I just find it repulsive them making money from a missing child- they have no real agenda to find the child or they would offer 3 million quid for information to where Maddie is and what happened to her. Same for the paents spending millions on their reputation management and lawyers fees, without even offering all they had to get news about her... say a lot does that. I would bankrupt myself just to know what happened to my baby.
But it's OK for good ol' Amaral to profit from Madeleine's disappearance, right?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 02, 2017, 07:27:15 PM
You seem to have no objection to the Mccanns or anyone who supports them making mo0ney from a disappeared child.
I have no objection to the McCanns raising money in Madeleine's name, to be used to help find her and to be used the fight injustice, no - not one single objection, she is their child after all, and if anyone's entitled to do this then her parents are. If they were lining their pockets and buying bling then I might feel differently.
Back on topic though - I trust you will be boycotting this programme Stephen?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 02, 2017, 07:36:11 PM
You seem to have no objection to the Mccanns or anyone who supports them making mo0ney from a disappeared child.
I would say with Kate having to give up work the McCanns are financially worse off as a result of Maddies disappearance Fortunately gerrys career is going from strength to strength
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 02, 2017, 07:41:17 PM
I have no objection to the McCanns raising money in Madeleine's name, to be used to help find her and to be used the fight injustice, no - not one single objection, she is their child after all, and if anyone's entitled to do this then her parents are. If they were lining their pockets and buying bling then I might feel differently.
Back on topic though - I trust you will be boycotting this programme Stephen?
Wait and see. 8)--))
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2017, 07:54:40 PM
I would say with Kate having to give up work the McCanns are financially worse off as a result of Maddies disappearance Fortunately gerrys career is going from strength to strength
She's working again now.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 02, 2017, 07:59:04 PM
I would say with Kate having to give up work the McCanns are financially worse off as a result of Maddies disappearance Fortunately gerrys career is going from strength to strength
lol they are millionaires thanks to their daughters mortal status , whatever that is. She didn't give up work at all. she gave up her GP job. She started a company with her husband, became a writer, of sorts and ambassador for missing people which would be hilarious if it weren't so serious! She also has a 'public persona' as a 'celebrity'.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 02, 2017, 08:00:02 PM
lol they are millionaires thanks to their daughters mortal status , whatever that is. She didn't give up work at all. she gave up her GP job. She started a company with her husband, became a writer, of sorts and ambassador for missing people which would be hilarious if it weren't so serious! She also has a 'public persona' as a 'celebrity'.
Cite for millionaires There's so much junk in that post it's a health hazard
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 02, 2017, 08:48:30 PM
I've figured out how to watch it. One month's subscription to Sky Entertainment for £7 if anyone's interested.
I have Sky so I'll be watching it, Alfie & I have also set it to record.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 02, 2017, 11:18:22 PM
Well plenty there to gladden the heart of your average doubter, shame they all missed it cos they think Brunt is shitter than shit and didn't watch it. @)(++(*
For me the best bit was when thr PT AG said he came to realise that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the McCanns were involved. He didn't say "not enough" or "a lack of evidence" but NO evidence. Quite right too.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 02, 2017, 11:19:32 PM
Well that's another wasted hour watching Brunty regurgitate the facts in the Madeleine McCann case. I don't think he even mentioned the name Amaral once either.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 02, 2017, 11:23:33 PM
Well plenty there to gladden the heart of your average doubter, shame they all missed it cos they think Brunt is shitter than shit and didn't watch it. @)(++(*
For me the best bit was when thr PT AG said he came to realise that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the McCanns were involved. He didn't say "not enough" or "a lack of evidence" but NO evidence. Quite right too.
The words used by the former AG were "no evidence at all". There was no admission that the parents weren't involved. And Brunty's claim that the parents were cleared by the original investigation was poo poo'd by the Supreme Court which stated that the parents had not been proved innocent.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Erngath on May 02, 2017, 11:23:44 PM
Well that's another wasted hour watching Brunty regurgitate the facts in the Madeleine McCann case. I don't think he even mentioned the name Amaral once either.
No he didn't. Just shows how worthless his ( amaral's) opinions are.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Erngath on May 02, 2017, 11:24:58 PM
Well plenty there to gladden the heart of your average doubter, shame they all missed it cos they think Brunt is shitter than shit and didn't watch it. @)(++(*
For me the best bit was when thr PT AG said he came to realise that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the McCanns were involved. He didn't say "not enough" or "a lack of evidence" but NO evidence. Quite right too.
He did indeed.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: misty on May 02, 2017, 11:30:31 PM
Ummm...what to say......much glossing-over & very led by the views of Colin Sutton. For those of us who are a little more informed it was indeed rather a nonentity. Next?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 02, 2017, 11:34:20 PM
The words used by the AG were "no evidence in the case". there was no admission that the parents weren't involved. And Brunty's claim that the parents were cleared by the original investigation was poo poo'd by the Supreme Court which stated that the parents had not been proved innocent.
Don't make me sit through the whole thing again to transcribe his words verbatim! He clearly said (unless I'm suffering auditory hallucinations) that it dawned on him that there was no evidence at all against the parents. If there's no evidence AT ALL against them then they deserve to be considered cleared in exactly the same way that Murat is considered cleared, and the rest of the ex arguidos. To make an exception in the case of the McCanns is manifestly unfair. They are either ALL cleared on none of them is cleared.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 02, 2017, 11:37:14 PM
Ummm...what to say......much glossing-over & very led by the views of Colin Sutton. For those of us who are a little more informed it was indeed rather a nonentity. Next?
Yes, it was rather the Colin Sutton show wasn't it? I suppose he had to earn his fee some how.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 02, 2017, 11:42:59 PM
Don't make me sit through the whole thing again to transcribe his words verbatim! He clearly said (unless I'm suffering auditory hallucinations) that it dawned on him that there was no evidence at all against the parents. If there's no evidence AT ALL against them then they deserve to be considered cleared in exactly the same way that Murat is considered cleared, and the rest of the ex arguidos. To make an exception in the case of the McCanns is manifestly unfair. They are either ALL cleared on none of them is cleared.
I recorded it so I was able to watch it again. Former Attorney General Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro never said "against the parents". He stated, "...it took me a long time to close the case until finally I convinced myself that there was no evidence at all."
One could infer that he meant no evidence at all of an abduction.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: misty on May 02, 2017, 11:47:25 PM
I recorded it so I was able to watch it again. Former Attorney General Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro never said "against the parents". He stated, "...it took me a long time to close the case until finally I convinced myself that there was no evidence at all."
One could infer that he meant no evidence at all of an abduction.
OK, if he didn't say that (and I will bow to your greater recollection) then by virtue of the fact that he stated there was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that would necessarily include "against the parents" as well would it not?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 02, 2017, 11:54:22 PM
Thank you misty, unfortunately he didn't clarify as to suspects in what?
Since the investigation is focused on the disappearance of Madeleine, I would conclude that the parents weren't suspected of being involved in it. However, he may have spoken with forked tongue.
Colin Sutton did voice his scepticism about the ruling out of Tannerman, though, which was interesting. "Almost certainly" - but not 100%.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 03, 2017, 12:20:42 AM
Since the investigation is focused on the disappearance of Madeleine, I would conclude that the parents weren't suspected of being involved in it. However, he may have spoken with forked tongue.
Colin Sutton did voice his scepticism about the ruling out of Tannerman, though, which was interesting. "Almost certainly" - but not 100%.
It is interesting that the woke and wandered theory has come to the fore after being denied for many years. I also note that former DCI Colin Sutton is of the opinion that someone knows what happened to Madeleine and now ten years on should be encouraged to come forward. That certainly isn't being pursued by Operation Grange as their priority is a collar at any price in order to justify the £11 million spent for far.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2017, 12:21:29 AM
You can watch it live on Sky News later today at 8pm UK time.
http://news.sky.com/watch-live
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 03, 2017, 12:53:19 AM
What was made crystal clear in the Sky documentary was that Operation Grange was not the back to basics wide scoping investigation which the public were led to believe. Former DCI Colin Sutton told how he was advised not to lead the enquiry as its scope was being restricted. Sutton was scathing of the investigation and the fact that only the abduction theory was being pursued. He confirmed that the parents had not be formally questioned by the Met adding that this was a mistake and should have been done if only to clear them of any involvement.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: misty on May 03, 2017, 01:04:58 AM
What was made crystal clear in the Sky documentary was that Operation Grange was not the back to basics wide scoping investigation which the public were led to believe. Former DCI Colin Sutton told how he was advised not to lead the enquiry as its scope was being restricted. Sutton was scathing of the investigation and the fact that only the abduction theory was being pursued. He confirmed that the parents had not be formally questioned by the Met adding that this was a mistake and should have been done if only to clear them of any involvement.
Sutton has no inside knowledge of OG so he is not in a position to officially comment on any line of questioning.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: misty on May 03, 2017, 01:36:47 AM
There was a short piece of footage in the documentary about the roadworks near 5a at the time & a photograph taken by a local of an open trench. I will try to screenshot it tomorrow if I watch the repeat on Sky News on my laptop.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2017, 01:45:20 AM
What was made crystal clear in the Sky documentary was that Operation Grange was not the back to basics wide scoping investigation which the public were led to believe. Former DCI Colin Sutton told how he was advised not to lead the enquiry as its scope was being restricted. Sutton was scathing of the investigation and the fact that only the abduction theory was being pursued. He confirmed that the parents had not be formally questioned by the Met adding that this was a mistake and should have been done if only to clear them of any involvement.
We only have his word for it and we have no idea whether or not he has misunderstood what he was told. This individual seems to have something of an axe to grind with his previous employers if his blog is anything to go by. Plus he was paid for his input so he had to give Sky some value for money. Pinch of salt time IMO..
When the SY police re-opened ty Ben Needham case I don't recall them going back to Day One and treating his family as suspects anyway. Should they have done, and is it an utter disgrace that they weren't?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 03, 2017, 08:56:44 AM
We only have his word for it and we have no idea whether or not he has misunderstood what he was told. This individual seems to have something of an axe to grind with his previous employers if his blog is anything to go by. Plus he was paid for his input so he had to give Sky some value for money. Pinch of salt time IMO..
When the SY police re-opened ty Ben Needham case I don't recall them going back to Day One and treating his family as suspects anyway. Should they have done, and is it an utter disgrace that they weren't?
Are you calling him a liar Alfie ?
Why would he have an axe to grind ?
We already know the Mccanns weren't investigated. He has merely filled in a few other missing pieces to the truth behind OG,
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 03, 2017, 09:05:10 AM
We already know the Mccanns weren't investigated. He has merely filled in a few other missing pieces to the truth behind OG,
No I am not calling him a liar - read my post again. Why he has an axe to grind I don't know but he has a track record of being critical of the Met on his blog for the last 6 years, which is fair enough but worth considering that he seems to have a pre-existing bias against them. I don't think there is anything sinister about the alleged fact that the McCanns were not interviewed again as suspects. There was no evidence they were involved despite extensive investigations by two previous police forces and a number of PIs, so interviewing them again would have been adding unnecessary suffering to the family and potentially further hugely damaging headlines. The Met have dealt with this case with sensitivity and compassion IMO, but I have no doubt that had evidence against the McCanns come to light in the re-investigation that this would not have been covered up. I can think of no good reason why it would have been. And let's not forget: the Portuguese as we are always being told have primacy in this case. They don't appear to have re-interviewed the McCanns as suspects either, nor requested the Met to do so on their behalf.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 03, 2017, 10:08:38 AM
Now we know the truth about Redwood, via the program.
He said the investigation would go back to the beginning.
It didn't, it was abduction and nothing else.
Just as I suspected. 8((()*/
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 03, 2017, 10:15:54 AM
No I am not calling him a liar - read my post again. Why he has an axe to grind I don't know but he has a track record of being critical of the Met on his blog for the last 6 years, which is fair enough but worth considering that he seems to have a pre-existing bias against them. I don't think there is anything sinister about the alleged fact that the McCanns were not interviewed again as suspects. There was no evidence they were involved despite extensive investigations by two previous police forces and a number of PIs, so interviewing them again would have been adding unnecessary suffering to the family and potentially further hugely damaging headlines. The Met have dealt with this case with sensitivity and compassion IMO, but I have no doubt that had evidence against the McCanns come to light in the re-investigation that this would not have been covered up. I can think of no good reason why it would have been. And let's not forget: the Portuguese as we are always being told have primacy in this case. They don't appear to have re-interviewed the McCanns as suspects either, nor requested the Met to do so on their behalf.
Alfie, they didn't investigate the McCann's.
I've said that all along, AND I WAS RIGHT.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 03, 2017, 10:29:59 AM
What was made crystal clear in the Sky documentary was that Operation Grange was not the back to basics wide scoping investigation which the public were led to believe. Former DCI Colin Sutton told how he was advised not to lead the enquiry as its scope was being restricted. Sutton was scathing of the investigation and the fact that only the abduction theory was being pursued. He confirmed that the parents had not be formally questioned by the Met adding that this was a mistake and should have been done if only to clear them of any involvement.
I believe he said they hadn't been interviewed under caution not that they haven't been interviewed
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 03, 2017, 11:55:11 AM
Did I just see Danie Krugel returning a hairbrush to Madeleine's parents via Brunt?
So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa. [Madeleine]
Jim Gamble on the attitude of British police to the Portuguese investigators; condescending. He says the PJ should have investigated the parents immediately; 'clear the ground beneath your feet'.
In answer to the McCann's complaints about lack of communication and being kept waiting Pedro do Carmo says they weren't trying to win a popularity contest, they were trying to do their job.
Colin Sutton; in 2010 he was told the investigation would be restricted in that the McCanns and their friends were not to be included. Brunt points out that the remit confirmed this by saying the crime was abduction. AC Rowley seems to confirm it also; 'however she left the apartment she was abducted'.
Pedro do Carmo says all options are still on the table as far as the Portuguese are concerned.
DNA evidence ruled out Monteiro. They must have had something to compare his DNA with then?
Colin Sutton; they need to start again, this time at the very beginning.
Brunt ends by saying two investigations found nothing to implicate the parents, but Jim Gamble earlier told us the PJ failed to 'clear the ground beneath their feet' and it seems the Met never even looked at the parents. That means they have never been properly investigated.
This was more honest than anything that has gone before. What seems to have emerged is that the first investigation was out of it's depth, the UK tried to help but hindered, and the second investigation was restricted. What a complete mess. Everyone did their best but still there is a little girl missing and despite all the efforts no-one knows why or how it happened.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2017, 09:03:51 PM
How many hairbrushes did Madeleine have? Why does everything about this case have to be mysterious?
The McCanns gave one to Krugel in July 2007. He just returned it, complete with hairs.
The family's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Gerry did give a hairbrush to Mr Krugel at the time to assist in his work. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hairbrush-belonging-madeleine-mccann-returned-10345139
The FSS were given one also;
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.
No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36.” http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 03, 2017, 10:10:47 PM
How many hairbrushes did Madeleine have? Why does everything about this case have to be mysterious?
The McCanns gave one to Krugel in July 2007. He just returned it, complete with hairs.
The family's spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Gerry did give a hairbrush to Mr Krugel at the time to assist in his work. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hairbrush-belonging-madeleine-mccann-returned-10345139
The FSS were given one also;
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.
No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the HAIRBRUSH SJM/36.” http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
My daughter probably had as many hairbrushes as she'd had birthdays by the time she was Madeleine's age, nothing too Tales of the Unexpected about it.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2017, 11:07:25 PM
Did I just see Danie Krugel returning a hairbrush to Madeleine's parents via Brunt?
So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa. [Madeleine]
Jim Gamble on the attitude of British police to the Portuguese investigators; condescending. He says the PJ should have investigated the parents immediately; 'clear the ground beneath your feet'.
In answer to the McCann's complaints about lack of communication and being kept waiting Pedro do Carmo says they weren't trying to win a popularity contest, they were trying to do their job.
Colin Sutton; in 2010 he was told the investigation would be restricted in that the McCanns and their friends were not to be included. Brunt points out that the remit confirmed this by saying the crime was abduction. AC Rowley seems to confirm it also; 'however she left the apartment she was abducted'.
Pedro do Carmo says all options are still on the table as far as the Portuguese are concerned.
DNA evidence ruled out Monteiro. They must have had something to compare his DNA with then?
Colin Sutton; they need to start again, this time at the very beginning.
Brunt ends by saying two investigations found nothing to implicate the parents, but Jim Gamble earlier told us the PJ failed to 'clear the ground beneath their feet' and it seems the Met never even looked at the parents. That means they have never been properly investigated.
This was more honest than anything that has gone before. What seems to have emerged is that the first investigation was out of it's depth, the UK tried to help but hindered, and the second investigation was restricted. What a complete mess. Everyone did their best but still there is a little girl missing and despite all the efforts no-one knows why or how it happened.
I thought it interesting that when Richard Bilton asked Pedro do Carmo directly in last nights BBC Panorama programme if the McCanns were still suspects he failed to give a straight answer.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 02:38:55 AM
Kate's turn to check the kids was at 9:30 but Matt stepped in and did it for her. Why did he do that?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 02:44:22 AM
"The apartment was let out twice in the next weeks before it was sealed off for a full forensic examination". That is astounding.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 02:59:44 AM
They should have made the parents suspects from the start. They should have got the details of all the employees quicker. Lack of confidence in that enough work had been done around potential witnesses and suspects. (17:50)
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 03:00:22 AM
Did I just see Danie Krugel returning a hairbrush to Madeleine's parents via Brunt?
So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa. [Madeleine]
Jim Gamble on the attitude of British police to the Portuguese investigators; condescending. He says the PJ should have investigated the parents immediately; 'clear the ground beneath your feet'.
In answer to the McCann's complaints about lack of communication and being kept waiting Pedro do Carmo says they weren't trying to win a popularity contest, they were trying to do their job.
Colin Sutton; in 2010 he was told the investigation would be restricted in that the McCanns and their friends were not to be included. Brunt points out that the remit confirmed this by saying the crime was abduction. AC Rowley seems to confirm it also; 'however she left the apartment she was abducted'.
Pedro do Carmo says all options are still on the table as far as the Portuguese are concerned.
DNA evidence ruled out Monteiro. They must have had something to compare his DNA with then?
Colin Sutton; they need to start again, this time at the very beginning.
Brunt ends by saying two investigations found nothing to implicate the parents, but Jim Gamble earlier told us the PJ failed to 'clear the ground beneath their feet' and it seems the Met never even looked at the parents. That means they have never been properly investigated.
This was more honest than anything that has gone before. What seems to have emerged is that the first investigation was out of it's depth, the UK tried to help but hindered, and the second investigation was restricted. What a complete mess. Everyone did their best but still there is a little girl missing and despite all the efforts no-one knows why or how it happened.
We have been told that the met did look at the parents They examined the files and agreed that there was nothing to implicated the parents We have been told that the parents have not been interviewed under caution by the met which tells us that they have been interviewed as witnesses because if they hadn't Sutton would have told us So what we know is after 10 yrs there is no evidence against the parents
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 04, 2017, 03:12:30 AM
We have been told that the met did look at the parents They examined the files and agreed that there was nothing to implicated the parents We have been told that the parents have not been interviewed under caution by the met which tells us that they have been interviewed as witnesses because if they hadn't Sutton would have told us So what we know is after 10 yrs there is no evidence against the parents
Pedro do Carmo was asked by Panorama if they were still suspects and he wouldn't give a straight answer, what does that tell you?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 03:28:25 AM
Colin Sutton: "that SY investigation would be away from the McCanns or the Tapas friends" (well something like that). So would that also include Jeremy Wilkins? Is he considered a Tapas friend? I know he tries to make out he is a friend of Gerry.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 03:37:33 AM
Pedro do Carmo was asked by Panorama if they were still suspects and he wouldn't give a straight answer, what does that tell you?
I haven't seen it but hasn't he already stated clearly they are not suspects He certainly has in his interview for expresso The McCanns are not suspects
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 03:39:42 AM
Jane Tanner's sketch appears at 30:25 onward.
I think Martin Brunt's point about the Crecheman going in the long way around (wrong direction) is very important. The little bit of uncertainty in Redwoods announcement just got considerably larger.
Collin Sutton is one who is not convinced by Redwood's explanation. Bravo!
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2017, 06:10:53 AM
I think Martin Brunt's point about the Crecheman going in the long way around (wrong direction) is very important. The little bit of uncertainty in Redwoods announcement just got considerably larger.
Collin Sutton is one who is not convinced by Redwood's explanation. Bravo!
No-one was convinced by Redwood's clumsy attempt to eliminate Tannerman. The interesting question is why?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 06:51:22 AM
I thought it interesting that when Richard Bilton asked Pedro do Carmo directly in last nights BBC Panorama programme if the McCanns were still suspects he failed to give a straight answer.
He failed to give a straight answer to just about every question he was asked, shifty doesn't even begin to cover it. Must be the judicial secrecy training kicking in.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 09:07:48 AM
He failed to give a straight answer to just about every question he was asked, shifty doesn't even begin to cover it. Must be the judicial secrecy training kicking in.
There were some very strange answers, especially the one about solving from your heart or your head. It really sounded like he would blame the parents from his heart but from is head he hasn't got any proof.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Benice on May 04, 2017, 09:19:53 AM
There were some very strange answers, especially the one about solving from your heart or your head. It really sounded like he would blame the parents from his heart but from is head he hasn't got any proof.
If one is a policeman and one is asked "are x,y & z suspects in your enquiry?", there is only one possible answer one can give regardless of its veracity, and that is No!
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 09:24:32 AM
If one is a policeman and one is asked "are x,y & z suspects in your enquiry?", there is only one possible answer one can give regardless of its veracity, and that is No!
No that could be a lie, the usual expression I found was "I can't confirm or deny that".
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 04, 2017, 09:25:24 AM
There were some very strange answers, especially the one about solving from your heart or your head. It really sounded like he would blame the parents from his heart but from is head he hasn't got any proof.
Isn't he the same bloke who said "The McCanns are not suspects. Period"? Their names all look and sound the same to me (RACIST!!!!)
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 09:28:57 AM
Isn't he the same bloke who said "The McCanns are not suspects. Period"? Their names all look and sound the same to me (RACIST!!!!)
I heard him say that too but he carried on and said something along the lines of "but that doesn't mean we have stopped looking for clues". He said this rather quietly so you might have missed it.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2017, 10:34:14 AM
"The apartment was let out twice in the next weeks before it was sealed off for a full forensic examination". That is astounding.
I believe it was let out more often than that. I think it was Carana who did the research and posted on the forum the names of at least four families who stayed there after the McCanns. I think at least one of which were relations of the owner, so maybe no formal let there but definitely occupation.
If forensic evidence was ruined as a result of people being in the apartment during the initial search for Madeleine ... how much more so after forensic searches had been completed (anyone had to deep clean after that fingerprint powder has been splashed around?) ... and the occupancy throughout the weeks afterwords.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2017, 10:45:31 AM
I believe it was let out more often than that. I think it was Carana who did the research and posted on the forum the names of at least four families who stayed there after the McCanns. I think at least one of which were relations of the owner, so maybe no formal let there but definitely occupation.
If forensic evidence was ruined as a result of people being in the apartment during the initial search for Madeleine ... how much more so after forensic searches had been completed (anyone had to deep clean after that fingerprint powder has been splashed around?) ... and the occupancy throughout the weeks afterwords.
Interesting point. Following a crime, how long would it be reasonable for an owner have to wait before regaining access to their property? Normally a forensic team would be in, do it's stuff and be out again within a relatively short time, so re-letting a holiday property a couple of weeks later wouldn't seem unreasonable to me.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Benice on May 04, 2017, 10:47:03 AM
I think Martin Brunt's point about the Crecheman going in the long way around (wrong direction) is very important. The little bit of uncertainty in Redwoods announcement just got considerably larger.
Collin Sutton is one who is not convinced by Redwood's explanation. Bravo!
IMO Colin Sutton's comments about Crecheman showed that he has no more info about this case than the rest of us.
We know that Crecheman was apparently going in the wrong direction. Does anyone think that SY didn't realise that too?
It's quite obvious to me that SY have discussed this with Crecheman who must have been able to give them a credible explanation for why he was going in that direction. What SY haven't done is told the public what that explanation was.
AIMHO
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 10:55:02 AM
IMO Colin Sutton's comments about Crecheman showed that he has no more info about this case than the rest of us.
We know that Crecheman was apparently going in the wrong direction. Does anyone think that SY didn't realise that too?
It's quite obvious to me that SY have discussed this with Crecheman who must have been able to give them a credible explanation for why he was going in that direction. What SY haven't done is told the public what that explanation was.
AIMHO
Knowing the general attitude they would be willing to sacrifice Jane Tanner's recollection. Maybe she was that confused he was walking in the opposite direction to what she said. She didn't see Jez didn't see Gerry, she didn't see Crecheman walking from left to right. She got the pyjamas wrong and the girl had a blanket, wrong again.
I'm not agreeing with this but I could imagine Jane being the one to be downplayed.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2017, 12:01:19 PM
IMO Colin Sutton's comments about Crecheman showed that he has no more info about this case than the rest of us.
We know that Crecheman was apparently going in the wrong direction. Does anyone think that SY didn't realise that too?
It's quite obvious to me that SY have discussed this with Crecheman who must have been able to give them a credible explanation for why he was going in that direction. What SY haven't done is told the public what that explanation was.
AIMHO
Your faith in SY is admirable, as is their unconcern about looking stupid.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 04, 2017, 12:12:15 PM
Mr do Carmo was asked if it was a mistake to have put the McCanns under investigation and said:”Obviously I will not answer that question.
Portuguese police chief Pedro Do Carmo used the anniversary to stress Kate and Gerry McCann’s innocence ”But what I can say, just as I did back in 2011 and 2013, is that Maddie’s parents are not suspects. That statement remains: the parents are not suspects. Full stop.”
Mr do Carmo, commendably tight-lipped (generally) but emphatic on (one!) point that really matters.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2017, 01:25:54 PM
Indeed he has. I wonder if SY will choose to address the issue, or merely ignore it ?
Well, if they deny it he could retaliate by naming the senior officer, I suppose. I think their only choice is to ignore it and try desperately to find an answer. If they accepted a restrictive remit they deserve all they get imo.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ferryman on May 04, 2017, 02:31:33 PM
Colin Sutton has totally embarrassed the Metropolitan Police. He has revealed that the investigation was restricted before it even started.
The met investigation followed a joint PJ-Leicestershire Police (also with NPIA input from Mark Harrison and Lee Rainbow) which firmly established the McCanns had no case to answer, but, unfortunately, made very little headway in establishing what might have happened to Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 02:42:09 PM
Colin Sutton has totally embarrassed the Metropolitan Police. He has revealed that the investigation was restricted before it even started.
You may want to take Sutton word without question but as Alf has said he seems to have a grievance with the met The fact that he has said the McCanns were not interviewed under caution implies they were interviews as witnesses They read the files and looked what was there Based on that they did not suspect the McCanns What further investigations could the met do? They obviously have interviewed them again otherwise sutton would have told us If they suspected them they would surely act
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ferryman on May 04, 2017, 02:47:59 PM
You may want to take Sutton word without question but as Alf has said he seems to have a grievance with the met The fact that he has said the McCanns were not interviewed under caution implies they were interviews as witnesses They read the files and looked what was there Based on that they did not suspect the McCanns What further investigations could the met do? They obviously have interviewed them again otherwise sutton would have told us If they suspected them they would surely act
The purpose in interviewing the McCanns (if they were) would be to try to draw more information that would assist efforts to track Madeleine's adductor.
If the Met and the PJ felt the McCanns had already contributed as much as they could in pursuit of that quest, they no doubt would not have troubled the McCanns any further.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2017, 05:11:18 PM
You may want to take Sutton word without question but as Alf has said he seems to have a grievance with the met The fact that he has said the McCanns were not interviewed under caution implies they were interviews as witnesses They read the files and looked what was there Based on that they did not suspect the McCanns What further investigations could the met do? They obviously have interviewed them again otherwise sutton would have told us If they suspected them they would surely act
I hope you'll forgive me but another poster's opinion is irrelevant to me. I think you'll find it was Rowley speaking about interviews, not Sutton. The remit told OG what they were investigating so your efforts to argue differently have no basis in fact. It seems it's true that Sutton was the Met's first choice;
Murder chief for Maddie, 09 May 2010 Murder chief for Maddie News of the World PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
By Lucy Panton, Crime Editor, 09/05/2010
BRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we can reveal.
Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.
I hope you'll forgive me but another poster's opinion is irrelevant to me. I think you'll find it was Rowley speaking about interviews, not Sutton. The remit told OG what they were investigating so your efforts to argue differently have no basis in fact. It seems it's true that Sutton was the Met's first choice;
Murder chief for Maddie, 09 May 2010 Murder chief for Maddie News of the World PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
By Lucy Panton, Crime Editor, 09/05/2010
BRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we can reveal.
Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.
Wasn't it Sutton who said the McCanns hadn't been interviewed under caution Paint any way you wish There is no evidence against the McCanns That's what the Portuguese have said and Rowley agrees with him
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2017, 05:24:42 PM
I hope you'll forgive me but another poster's opinion is irrelevant to me. I think you'll find it was Rowley speaking about interviews, not Sutton. The remit told OG what they were investigating so your efforts to argue differently have no basis in fact. It seems it's true that Sutton was the Met's first choice;
Murder chief for Maddie, 09 May 2010 Murder chief for Maddie News of the World PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
By Lucy Panton, Crime Editor, 09/05/2010
BRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we can reveal.
Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.
I hope you'll forgive me but another poster's opinion is irrelevant to me. I think you'll find it was Rowley speaking about interviews, not Sutton. The remit told OG what they were investigating so your efforts to argue differently have no basis in fact. It seems it's true that Sutton was the Met's first choice;
Murder chief for Maddie, 09 May 2010 Murder chief for Maddie News of the World PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
By Lucy Panton, Crime Editor, 09/05/2010
BRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we can reveal.
Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.
So he was lined up for the job and may have been expecting it but it was given to someone else Many people might feel a little bitter in the circumstances
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 05:52:07 PM
I hope you'll forgive me but another poster's opinion is irrelevant to me. I think you'll find it was Rowley speaking about interviews, not Sutton. The remit told OG what they were investigating so your efforts to argue differently have no basis in fact. It seems it's true that Sutton was the Met's first choice;
Murder chief for Maddie, 09 May 2010 Murder chief for Maddie News of the World PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
By Lucy Panton, Crime Editor, 09/05/2010
BRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we can reveal.
Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.
I hope you'll forgive me but another poster's opinion is irrelevant to me. I think you'll find it was Rowley speaking about interviews, not Sutton. The remit told OG what they were investigating so your efforts to argue differently have no basis in fact. It seems it's true that Sutton was the Met's first choice;
Murder chief for Maddie, 09 May 2010 Murder chief for Maddie News of the World PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
By Lucy Panton, Crime Editor, 09/05/2010
BRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we can reveal.
Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton, 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of Milly Dowler and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.
In the Panorama programme the talking head from the Met (Stephenson?) said that the very first thing they did as part of Op Grange was to revisit all the (non existent) evidence against the parents and made a value judgement on whether or not they should be treated as suspects. Based on the complete absence of evidence they decided that they would not investigate them further. Same with Murat presumably. What do you have a problem with, exactly?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 04, 2017, 07:22:57 PM
In the Panorama programme the talking head from the Met (Stephenson?) said that the very first thing they did as part of Op Grange was to revisit all the (non existent) evidence against the parents and made a value judgement on whether or not they should be treated as suspects. Based on the complete absence of evidence they decided that they would not investigate them further. Same with Murat presumably. What do you have a problem with, exactly?
Commander Simon Foy, the man who agreed the remit (which was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011), seems to say that the McCanns weren't there when Madeleine went missing. (Panorama 36:05). Did they know what time she went missing at the very beginning then? I think not.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 08:26:38 PM
Commander Simon Foy, the man who agreed the remit (which was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011), seems to say that the McCanns weren't there when Madeleine went missing. (Panorama 36:05). Did they know what time she went missing at the very beginning then? I think not.
Simon Foy may have agreed it but who wrote it and when It did not appear until Jan 2012 six months after the review started Time to rule out the mccanns
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 04, 2017, 09:50:56 PM
Commander Simon Foy, the man who agreed the remit (which was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011), seems to say that the McCanns weren't there when Madeleine went missing. (Panorama 36:05). Did they know what time she went missing at the very beginning then? I think not.
What he seemed to say was the polce looked at ALL the accumulated evidence and ruled out the parents. The programme maker investigative reporter Bilton has also been living and breathing the case for the last 10years and he too is convinced of the parents innocence, anyone who can think logically and clearly couldn't fail to come to the same conclusion.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 04, 2017, 10:09:34 PM
What he seemed to say was the polce looked at ALL the accumulated evidence and ruled out the parents. The programme maker investigative reporter Bilton has also been living and breathing the case for the last 10years and he too is convinced of the parents innocence, anyone who can think logically and clearly couldn't fail to come to the same conclusion.
OK so let's work on the premise the parents had nothing to do with it. What happened ? The little girl vanished into thin air. Will some nice kind supporter explain how that happened in detail using witness statements known evidence and for preference using somekind of reality charting ?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 10:17:10 PM
OK so let's work on the premise the parents had nothing to do with it. What happened ? The little girl vanished into thin air. Will some nice kind supporter explain how that happened in detail using witness statements known evidence and for preference using somekind of reality charting ?
Family had been watched by a group who wanted to abduct a child fitting Maddies description Understood the 30 min checking routine After check someone raises shutters from outside and opens the unlocked window Climbs in Lifts up the sleeping Maddie with hand over mouth Leaves through the front door Waiting car
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 04, 2017, 10:28:30 PM
Family had been watched by a group who wanted to abduct a child fitting Maddies description Understood the 30 min checking routine After check someone raises shutters from outside and opens the unlocked window Climbs in Lifts up the sleeping Maddie with hand over mouth Leaves through the front door Waiting car
1. Speculation on your part. 2. There is no evidence the window was unlocked. 3. Speculation on your part. 4. Speculation on your part. 5. Where is there evidence of a waiting car.
I said preferably using some kind of reality charting.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 04, 2017, 10:29:05 PM
Family had been watched by a group who wanted to abduct a child fitting Maddies description Understood the 30 min checking routine After check someone raises shutters from outside and opens the unlocked window Climbs in Lifts up the sleeping Maddie with hand over mouth Leaves through the front door Waiting car
There's been a whole thread about this recently. Sceptics simply won't have it though. As far as most of them are concerned they are in Amaral's camp ie: abduction is "materially impossible" (what a complete crock).
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 10:34:11 PM
1. Speculation on your part. 2. There is no evidence the window was unlocked. 3. Speculation on your part. 4. Speculation on your part. 5. Where is there evidence of a waiting car.
I said preferably using some kind of reality charting.
Of course it's speculation What else did you expect I have given a scenario of how it may have happened Of course you can pick holes in it but there are much bigger holes in the accident theory
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 04, 2017, 11:00:27 PM
Of course it's speculation What else did you expect I have given a scenario of how it may have happened Of course you can pick holes in it but there are much bigger holes in the accident theory
What a quaint idea. @davel & @Alfie. I am not interested in what Sr Amaral may or may not have said or what his theories were. I am asking for supporters to come up with a theory based on the evidence. After all you are ones who are hot on the evidence. Put to the test the best you can manage so far is to speculate. So what happened to the bit about how you understand the evidence better that all sceptics put together, then ?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2017, 11:11:03 PM
What a quaint idea. @davel & @Alfie. I am not interested in what Sr Amaral may or may not have said or what his theories were. I am asking for supporters to come up with a theory based on the evidence. After all you are ones who are hot on the evidence. Put to the test the best you can manage so far is to speculate. So what happened to the bit about how you understand the evidence better that all sceptics put together, then ?
It's quite simple The evidence tells us what didn't happen and abduction is virtually proved by default
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 04, 2017, 11:14:25 PM
65 pages of discussion here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7884.0
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2017, 11:38:05 PM
LOL @ Robbity I'd forgotten about that one. I really tore a strip off you Robbity I certainly had a cob on about something ... very sorry about that.
I think this has become quite a plausible theory (currently anyway), but I would include the failed burglary attempt as the reason the window was up and Madeleine woke.
So now I would write:
Who goes for an abduction as a possible solution? I do, and I know Sadie does, I know Stephen doesn't. Alfie must think it is likely.
My theory was a two stage abduction. There was the walking and wandering part, and that is followed by the abduction. So my initial thoughts were along the line that the "abductor" was never in the apartment. It is really hard to build a workable scenario around these initial thoughts.
As I am exploring in another thread my findings so far are that none of the Tapas 9 (excluding Kate) initially thought Madeleine had been abducted. Their initial thoughts were that she would be around the buildings or grounds somewhere, so they must have been thinking something like the woke and wandered scenario. This is their thoughts even though they are generally aware that Kate and others had seen the window open and the shutters up due to the failed burglary attempt. (That in itself has still quite contradictory thoughts for why would they all not think like Kate?)
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2017, 09:57:39 AM
65 pages of discussion here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7884.0
So there is. Now will someone point to where there is anything remoteley resembling reality charting or similar? Except perhaps a signpost to it in post #1 8(>((
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 05, 2017, 11:19:57 AM
So there is. Now will someone point to where there is anything remoteley resembling reality charting or similar? Except perhaps a signpost to it in post #1 8(>((
You should be able to do that in your sleep. I've noticed how intellectual you are.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 05, 2017, 11:32:19 AM
You should be able to do that in your sleep. I've noticed how intellectual you are.
I have done it as far as it can go and posted it at least three times. It does not meet with approval except from one possibly two others. It does meet with a lot of jeering and sneering from the usual suspects which then tells us all we need to know.... ?{)(**
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: John on May 05, 2017, 11:36:11 AM
It's quite simple The evidence tells us what didn't happen and abduction is virtually proved by default
The evidence? Do you mean the non existent evidence that any stranger abduction occurred and that other evidence which points to woke wandered and met with an accident?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2017, 12:34:20 PM
Pointing to various people who have said 'the parents are not suspects' or 'the parents are innocent' is somewhat naive in my opinion. No policeman with any sense will tell who they suspect because that warns them. In this particular case there are people whose mission is to prevent anything being aired in the media or on blogs which casts aspersions on the McCanns. There was unusual interaction with the press, as Richard Bilton has disclosed.
I was offered a deal by supporters of the McCanns. If I spied on the press pack, and passed on any stories I heard about the first suspect, Robert Murat, I’d be given leads from inside the camp. I declined.....
I have received warning letters from their lawyers, Carter Ruck. But I have never seen anything that makes me doubt their innocence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/bbc-panoramas-richard-bilton-supporters-mccanns-asked-act-spy/
The Carter Ruck letters explain why almost every commentator mentions the 'innocence' of the parents. I thought only editors were threatened, but it seems individual reporters were too.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 05, 2017, 01:06:08 PM
I have done it as far as it can go and posted it at least three times. It does not meet with approval except from one possibly two others. It does meet with a lot of jeering and sneering from the usual suspects which then tells us all we need to know.... ?{)(**
Is that a post on the forum somewhere sometime?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 04:53:11 PM
Pointing to various people who have said 'the parents are not suspects' or 'the parents are innocent' is somewhat naive in my opinion. No policeman with any sense will tell who they suspect because that warns them. In this particular case there are people whose mission is to prevent anything being aired in the media or on blogs which casts aspersions on the McCanns. There was unusual interaction with the press, as Richard Bilton has disclosed.
I was offered a deal by supporters of the McCanns. If I spied on the press pack, and passed on any stories I heard about the first suspect, Robert Murat, I’d be given leads from inside the camp. I declined.....
I have received warning letters from their lawyers, Carter Ruck. But I have never seen anything that makes me doubt their innocence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/bbc-panoramas-richard-bilton-supporters-mccanns-asked-act-spy/
The Carter Ruck letters explain why almost every commentator mentions the 'innocence' of the parents. I thought only editors were threatened, but it seems individual reporters were too.
I think it's bonkers to believe that Richard Bilton was threatened by Carter Ruck to ensure that his views on the parents' innocence are repeated every time he mentions them.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 05, 2017, 04:58:51 PM
Your post does seem more than a little biased SY are far from stupid
One of the points on my Luz tours is designed to show how lacking in intelligence OG was.
The point of relevance would not interest them, as they have already fingertip-searched the area, to rule out 38 'anomalies'.
By the way, both of my last guests have expressed astonishment as to how large that site is, so it hasn't come over in the media the way it does on the ground.
I have completed Luz Tour 6. Luz Tour 5 will be going up on my blog soon.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2017, 05:11:59 PM
I have watched both of them now, and pretty much much of a muchness I would say. Not biased at all.
Some things were said that I didn't like, but then some things were said that I did.
Honestly, what more can one wish for?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2017, 05:12:54 PM
One of the points on my Luz tours is designed to show how lacking in intelligence OG was.
The point of relevance would not interest them, as they have already fingertip-searched the area, to rule out 38 'anomalies'.
By the way, both of my last guests have expressed astonishment as to how large that site is, so it hasn't come over in the media the way it does on the ground.
I have completed Luz Tour 6. Luz Tour 5 will be going up on my blog soon.
You may think OG was lacking in intelligence but others will find that says more about you than Grange
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2017, 05:50:33 PM
I think it's bonkers to believe that Richard Bilton was threatened by Carter Ruck to ensure that his views on the parents' innocence are repeated every time he mentions them.
It does seem unbelievable, I agree. It happened though, he has received warning letters from Carter Ruck. What on earth could they be warning him about? I'm sure it wasn't what you have said, that's ridiculous.
Mentioning the McCann's innocence is probably an attempt to stay in their good books. The letters were more likely to be about something he said that they didn't like. I wonder what it was?
No wonder everyone was nervous when Mark Williams-Thomas was on TV recently. The McCanns seem to have succeeded in making everyone in the media paranoid in case they upset them.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 05:54:19 PM
It does seem unbelievable, I agree. It happened though, he has received warning letters from Carter Ruck. What on earth could they be warning him about? I'm sure it wasn't what you have said, that's ridiculous.
Mentioning the McCann's innocence is probably an attempt to stay in their good books. The letters were more likely to be about something he said that they didn't like. I wonder what it was?
No wonder everyone was nervous when Mark Williams-Thomas was on TV recently. The McCanns seem to have succeeded in making everyone in the media paranoid in case they upset them.
Genuine question: did it ever occur to you that Richard Bilton actually does wholeheartedly believe the parents to be completely innocent, or is that beyond the realms of possibility in your view?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 06:01:59 PM
Alice is simply playing games - he asks you to speculate on how an abduction could have taken place and then when you give a perfectly plausible and logical explanation for abduction he complains that you're speculating. He really should grow up IMO.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 05, 2017, 06:03:17 PM
Genuine question: did it ever occur to you that Richard Bilton actually does wholeheartedly believe the parents to be completely innocent, or is that beyond the realms of possibility in your view?
I think you're homing in on the bit which is the least significant. The significant bit is that there is obviously media monitoring going on and warnings are issued to anyone who offends in some way.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 06:31:33 PM
I think you're homing in on the bit which is the least significant. The significant bit is that there is obviously media monitoring going on and warnings are issued to anyone who offends in some way
That's not strictly true now is it? But if you think it is then by all means provide a cite - lots of people have offended the McCanns in recent months, including some high profile Z-lister clebs - perhaps you could tell us which ones got slapped with a Carter Ruck letter for causing offence.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2017, 08:34:21 PM
That's not strictly true now is it? But if you think it is then by all means provide a cite - lots of people have offended the McCanns in recent months, including some high profile Z-lister clebs - perhaps you could tell us which ones got slapped with a Carter Ruck letter for causing offence.
It explains the timid reporting which has been obvious for years. It explains why Katie Hopkins wasn't allowed to say what she thought. No, I can't tell you who's been Carter Rucked, but if BBC Journalists have I would guess that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 05, 2017, 08:46:49 PM
It explains the timid reporting which has been obvious for years. It explains why Katie Hopkins wasn't allowed to say what she thought. No, I can't tell you who's been Carter Rucked, but if BBC Journalists have I would guess that's just the tip of the iceberg.
When was Katie Hopkins not allowed to say what she thought?! You do understand that responsible reporting means you can't publish unevidenced accusations about people don't you?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 04:26:38 AM
It explains the timid reporting which has been obvious for years. It explains why Katie Hopkins wasn't allowed to say what she thought. No, I can't tell you who's been Carter Rucked, but if BBC Journalists have I would guess that's just the tip of the iceberg.
You want to pretend that the McCanns enjoy some special type of protection where anyone who disagrees with them is silenced That is of course absolute rubbish and detracts from your credibility and judgement the McCanns are protected by law from defamation the same as everybody else is....there are no special rules that only apply to them
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 06, 2017, 04:32:57 AM
I have done it as far as it can go and posted it at least three times. It does not meet with approval except from one possibly two others. It does meet with a lot of jeering and sneering from the usual suspects which then tells us all we need to know.... ?{)(**
Would you care to try again?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2017, 05:28:21 AM
You want to pretend that the McCanns enjoy some special type of protection where anyone who disagrees with them is silenced That is of course absolute rubbish and detracts from your credibility and judgement the McCanns are protected by law from defamation the same as everybody else is....there are no special rules that only apply to them
The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 07:09:15 AM
The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.
So your claim that they silence anyone who disagrees with them is not true You support amaral with a book and video which uses lies to discredit the McCanns but resent the McCanns getting the protection of the law they are entitled to in the uk Bias showing again
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2017, 07:51:45 AM
So your claim that they silence anyone who disagrees with them is not true You support amaral with a book and video which uses lies to discredit the McCanns but resent the McCanns getting the protection of the law they are entitled to in the uk Bias showing again
I don't think you can prove what you say either. I see nothing wrong in Amaral giving his opinion and neither do the Portuguese Courts.
Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law but not everyone is entitled to the protection of highly paid lawyers; only those who can pay for it. Are lawyers always right? Clearly not, because for every case a lawyer wins another one loses.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 06, 2017, 08:31:04 AM
The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.
What is it you'd like the MSM to be reporting that according to you they are too intimidated to report? What's stopping the Portuguese or American press from reporting it?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2017, 09:12:49 AM
What is it you'd like the MSM to be reporting that according to you they are too intimidated to report? What's stopping the Portuguese or American press from reporting it?
I thought the two documentaries were more balanced than previous reports. Evidence was quoted and there was less emphasis on how the parents feel.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 09:13:46 AM
I don't think you can prove what you say either. I see nothing wrong in Amaral giving his opinion and neither do the Portuguese Courts.
Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law but not everyone is entitled to the protection of highly paid lawyers; only those who can pay for it. Are lawyers always right? Clearly not, because for every case a lawyer wins another one lose
I have quoted instances where amaral has lied in order to support his opinion So you support that which again shows your bias and you resent the McCanns having the protection of the law which again shows your bias Your claim that the McCanns can silence anyone who disagrees with them is obviously rubbish and you have posted something which is patently untrue The Portuguese court has supported amaral but whether they have acted within the law has yet to be established
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 09:17:01 AM
The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting.
You accuse the McCanns of 'buying' protection and when they run out of money for it ... reporting on Madeleine's case will perhaps become more "interesting".
"The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting."
Please elucidate.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 06, 2017, 10:01:14 AM
You accuse the McCanns of 'buying' protection and when they run out of money for it ... reporting on Madeleine's case will perhaps become more "interesting".
"The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting."
Please elucidate.
Either G-unit has forgotten No Win, No Fee, or is accusing The McCanns of bribing people.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 06, 2017, 10:17:33 AM
Carter Ruck are on a retainer, that much was admitted when Gerry appeared before the select committee.
So running out of money on that score wouldn't matter.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 10:48:40 AM
Carter Ruck are on no wi no fee as I understand and they must love it There is no evidence against the McCanns and they should not be defamed It has not been ruled yet whether the judgement in Portugal complies with the law
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2017, 10:52:39 AM
Either G-unit has forgotten No Win, No Fee, or is accusing The McCanns of bribing people.
Every time a lawyers writes a letter they charge you. I doubt if letters come under the heading of 'no win no fee'. I accuse no-one of bribery, where does that come into it? Carter Ruck appear to highlight what is being objected to, what the receiver's response should be, and the consequences of refusing to comply. They threaten.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 06, 2017, 10:58:33 AM
Every time a lawyers writes a letter they charge you. I doubt if letters come under the heading of 'no win no fee'. I accuse no-one of bribery, where does that come into it? Carter Ruck appear to highlight what is being objected to, what the receiver's response should be, and the consequences of refusing to comply. They threaten.
How many letters have they written? Do you know?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2017, 11:04:59 AM
Carter Ruck are on no wi no fee as I understand and they must love it There is no evidence against the McCanns and they should not be defamed It has not been ruled yet whether the judgement in Portugal complies with the law
The Portuguese Supreme Court is the arbiter of the law of Portugal. I think you mean European law.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Benice on May 06, 2017, 11:05:47 AM
I don't think you can prove what you say either. I see nothing wrong in Amaral giving his opinion and neither do the Portuguese Courts.
Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law but not everyone is entitled to the protection of highly paid lawyers; only those who can pay for it. Are lawyers always right? Clearly not, because for every case a lawyer wins another one loses.
It makes no difference to the Libel laws whether highly paid lawyers are involved or not. Such lawyers may be advantageous with regard to other types of crimes but not Libel Either a claim is libellous or it isn't imo.
Newspaper editors making sure that no libellous claims or statements are made with regard to the McCanns is not out of any special consideration for them - as some people seem to think. They are protecting their own backs not the McCanns.
AIMHO
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 11:13:21 AM
Every time a lawyers writes a letter they charge you. I doubt if letters come under the heading of 'no win no fee'. I accuse no-one of bribery, where does that come into it? Carter Ruck appear to highlight what is being objected to, what the receiver's response should be, and the consequences of refusing to comply. They threaten.
They threaten people with the law You seem to want people to be able to act outside the law to persecute the mccanns
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 11:17:03 AM
The Portuguese Supreme Court is the arbiter of the law of Portugal. I think you mean European law.
No I don't Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject to European law The ECHR will decide if the SC has complied with the law The judgement claims it has complied but the ECHR may decide otherwise As regard human rights the ECHR is the arbiter of the law in portugal and thank god for that
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: jassi on May 06, 2017, 11:25:54 AM
No I don't Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject to European law The ECHR will decide if the SC has complied with the law The judgement claims it has complied but the ECHR may decide otherwise
And then what? Some small compensatory fine and then business as usual ?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2017, 11:26:43 AM
No I don't Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject to European law The ECHR will decide if the SC has complied with the law The judgement claims it has complied but the ECHR may decide otherwise
You are arguing about something which hasn't, as yet, been applied for. If it is applied for it will take years to decide if, of course, the application is accepted. You may think it will be accepted and the judgement will be in the McCann's favour. Pure speculation coloured by your biased opinion. At this moment in time the McCanns have lost their case to silence Amaral.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2017, 11:51:09 AM
You are arguing about something which hasn't, as yet, been applied for. If it is applied for it will take years to decide if, of course, the application is accepted. You may think it will be accepted and the judgement will be in the McCann's favour. Pure speculation coloured by your biased opinion. At this moment in time the McCanns have lost their case to silence Amaral.
They have lost that particular case against Sr Amaral for ever.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2017, 11:57:49 AM
You are arguing about something which hasn't, as yet, been applied for. If it is applied for it will take years to decide if, of course, the application is accepted. You may think it will be accepted and the judgement will be in the McCann's favour. Pure speculation coloured by your biased opinion. At this moment in time the McCanns have lost their case to silence Amaral.
I'm not arguing I'm stating a fact The SC is not the final arbiter of the law in this case and may have made an incorrect decision Until the ECHR make a decision you cannot claim that the SC have applied the law correctly
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 06, 2017, 12:26:03 PM
I'm not arguing I'm stating a fact The SC is not the final arbiter of the law in this case and may have made an incorrect decision Until the ECHR make a decision you cannot claim that the SC have applied the law correctly
There seems to be some logic there.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 06, 2017, 12:38:53 PM
Thread "What is the evidence in the Madeleine McCann disappearance?" Post 5
I realised today that if Madeleine woke and wandered for whatever reason, she would have left via the sliding door and the two gates on the path. So it is therefore evident that the abductor went back there and closed the door and the gates probably so the other two kids didn't also wander off.
That indicates to me (IMO) it was someone who knew the family.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2017, 12:41:13 PM
No I don't Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject to European law The ECHR will decide if the SC has complied with the law The judgement claims it has complied but the ECHR may decide otherwise As regard human rights the ECHR is the arbiter of the law in portugal and thank god for that
1. Administered by whom? I think you will find however that the ECJ does not administer national law. 2. Which law?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2017, 12:50:45 PM
I'm not arguing I'm stating a fact The SC is not the final arbiter of the law in this case and may have made an incorrect decision Until the ECHR make a decision you cannot claim that the SC have applied the law correctly
The SC is the final arbiter of national law in the Republic of Portugal. Whatever the ECHR do they cannot overturn the ruling of the SC. With respect to what the ECHR can do see Jassi's post a bit above.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 06, 2017, 12:59:18 PM
The SC is the final arbiter of national law in the Republic of Portugal. Whatever the ECHR do they cannot overturn the ruling of the SC. With respect to what the ECHR can do see Jassi's post a bit above.
Once again Portugal is not the final arbiter of the law in Portugal in cases regarding human rights The ECHR is The SC argued that their judgement complies with eoropean law The ECHR may not agree They cannot overturn the decision but they can rule that the SC abused the mccanns human rights and award compensation Those are the facts
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 06, 2017, 01:35:21 PM
I thought the two documentaries were more balanced than previous reports. Evidence was quoted and there was less emphasis on how the parents feel.
But according to you the MSM is under constant threat of legal action by the McCanns intimidating them into not reporting the facts. So what are the facts that the MSM aren't reporting?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2017, 03:55:49 PM
Once again Portugal is not the final arbiter of the law in Portugal in cases regarding human rights The ECHR is The SC argued that their judgement complies with eoropean law The ECHR may not agree They cannot overturn the decision but they can rule that the SC abused the mccanns human rights and award compensation Those are the facts
You posted: Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject to European law.
Maybe you had better define what you mean by European law and Portuguese law.
Portugal could of course ignore any ruling by the ECHR as it would seem many other states do:
Several states ignore judgments of the Strasbourg Court 36 of the 47 Council of Europe member states are not fulfilling one of their central duty: they fail to fully implement within a reasonable time judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg. http://www.humanrights.ch/en/standards/international/council-of-europe-institutions/states-ignore-judgments-strasbourg-court
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2017, 04:13:10 PM
You posted: Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject to European law.
Maybe you had better define what you mean by European law and Portuguese law.
Portugal could of course ignore any ruling by the ECHR as it would seem many other states do:
Several states ignore judgments of the Strasbourg Court 36 of the 47 Council of Europe member states are not fulfilling one of their central duty: they fail to fully implement within a reasonable time judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg. http://www.humanrights.ch/en/standards/international/council-of-europe-institutions/states-ignore-judgments-strasbourg-court
I would have thought you understood such basics Of course Portugal could ignore the ECHR as they have ignored the rule of law imo If they want to be known as a country who abused the human rights of the McCanns that's up to them but it would portugal in a very bad light Not that they would care
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 06, 2017, 05:18:46 PM
Can someone remind me of the human rights of Madeleine which weren't defended ?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2017, 05:23:07 PM
I would have thought you understood such basics Of course Portugal could ignore the ECHR as they have ignored the rule of law imo If they want to be known as a country who abused the human rights of the McCanns that's up to them but it would portugal in a very bad light Not that they would care
I do; The Supreme Court of The Republic of Portugal is the highest court in that state, there being no mechanisms for overturning it's rulings. It cannot be overruled by the ECJ as that it is outside the scope of the ECJ which rules on European Union matters not matters of national law. It cannot be overruled by the ECHR as that is outside the remit of the ECHR. If a plaintiff makes a complaint against a member state of The Council of Europe it may, if admissible, eventually be heard by the ECHR who may fine the member state and ask them to change their laws if deemed desirable by the ECHR. The fine may be paid to plaintiff as compensation. Just as guide to quantum Steel and Morris were only awarded £50k by the ECHR against the UK in the McLibel Trial. Then of course the state may just ignore the ruling as over 75% of states do. So as it sits at present: The ruling of the SC remains and will so in perpetuity. The Drs McCann will have to pay the costs awarded by the courts plus their own legal costs unless someother arrangement satisfactory to all parties be agreed. Appealing to the ECHR is a long winded process whereby one may, apparently, finish up with an unenforceable piece of paper.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2017, 05:26:17 PM
The presumption of her death without a shred of evidence to support it .
The fact that no trace of her has been found is evidence that she no longer lives.
Remember the standard 7 year ruling in courts.
The fact that she and her siblings were left by themselves, means they were not being taken care of. Left in a situation where they were exposed to danger. A breach of their human rights.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2017, 05:58:13 PM
The fact that no trace of her has been found is evidence that she no longer lives.
Remember the standard 7 year ruling in courts.
The fact that she and her siblings were left by themselves, means they were not being taken care of. Left in a situation where they were exposed to danger. A breach of their human rights.
No request has been made to any court to have Madeleine presumed dead.
The Portuguese Attorney General rubbishes your contention of exposure to danger.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 06, 2017, 06:04:04 PM
No request has been made to any court to have Madeleine presumed dead.
The Portuguese Attorney General rubbishes your contention of exposure to danger.
Give that time.
Madeleine disappeared without trace.
The former Portuguese Minister, Rui Periera who stated the McCann's should have been made arguidos and charged with abandonment. Crystal clear on that. He said it was a mistake not to charge them.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2017, 06:10:49 PM
The former Portuguese Minister, Rui Periera who stated the McCann's should have been made arguidos and charged with abandonment. Crystal clear on that. He said it was a mistake not to charge them.
I'm rather hoping that Madeleine is recovered alive and well ... now I suggest we both get back on topic because we are both going to end up whooshed on edit anyway.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2017, 02:52:51 AM
I do; The Supreme Court of The Republic of Portugal is the highest court in that state, there being no mechanisms for overturning it's rulings. It cannot be overruled by the ECJ as that it is outside the scope of the ECJ which rules on European Union matters not matters of national law. It cannot be overruled by the ECHR as that is outside the remit of the ECHR. If a plaintiff makes a complaint against a member state of The Council of Europe it may, if admissible, eventually be heard by the ECHR who may fine the member state and ask them to change their laws if deemed desirable by the ECHR. The fine may be paid to plaintiff as compensation. Just as guide to quantum Steel and Morris were only awarded £50k by the ECHR against the UK in the McLibel Trial. Then of course the state may just ignore the ruling as over 75% of states do. So as it sits at present: The ruling of the SC remains and will so in perpetuity. The Drs McCann will have to pay the costs awarded by the courts plus their own legal costs unless someother arrangement satisfactory to all parties be agreed. Appealing to the ECHR is a long winded process whereby one may, apparently, finish up with an unenforceable piece of paper.
You have missed out what is perhaps the most important point The ECHR can rule that the member state applied the law incorrectly This useless piece of paper would show that the McCanns had been the victims of a miscarriage of justice by Portugal and that amaral had indeed defamed them. It could show just how much the SC got the law wrong
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 07, 2017, 04:55:11 AM
You have missed out what is perhaps the most important point The ECHR can rule that the member state applied the law incorrectly This useless piece of paper would show that the McCanns had been the victims of a miscarriage of justice by Portugal and that amaral had indeed defamed them. It could show just how much the SC got the law wrong
It could be that a ruling in favour of the McCanns will affect the law in Portugal going forward rather than retrospectively. They may get some compensation from Portugal but the verdict will stand as it is.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2017, 05:36:04 AM
It could be that a ruling in favour of the McCanns will affect the law in Portugal going forward rather than retrospectively. They may get some compensation from Portugal but the verdict will stand as it is.
The verdict will stand The McCanns would get some compensation but perhaps not much What they would get is confirmation that they have been very badly treated by Portugal Is it worth it That's up to the McCanns and it seems they think it is
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2017, 05:38:46 AM
The verdict will stand The McCanns would get some compensation but perhaps not much What they would get is confirmation that they have been very badly treated by Portugal Is it worth it That's up to the McCanns and it seems they think it is
And how would that affect any potential claim by amaral Could the Portuguese courts award compensation to amaral if it had been shown that their judgement was wrong If amaral did try to claim compensation could the McCanns argue that any claim should be delayed until the judgement had been reviewed by the ECHR
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2017, 05:59:59 AM
And how would that affect any potential claim by amaral Could the Portuguese courts award compensation to amaral if it had been shown that their judgement was wrong If amaral did try to claim compensation could the McCanns argue that any claim should be delayed until the judgement had been reviewed by the ECHR
It won't affect anything payable in connection with the recent case. Court costs etc will have to be paid. Possibly interest on Amaral's money, possibly compensation for the freezing injunction. If the McCanns go to the ECHR their case is against Portugal, not Amaral.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2017, 06:45:33 AM
It won't affect anything payable in connection with the recent case. Court costs etc will have to be paid. Possibly interest on Amaral's money, possibly compensation for the freezing injunction. If the McCanns go to the ECHR their case is against Portugal, not Amaral.
Of course it won't affect the court costs but read my post again and you wil see what I am questioning re any compensation claim
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2017, 07:37:23 AM
You have missed out what is perhaps the most important point The ECHR can rule that the member state applied the law incorrectly This useless piece of paper would show that the McCanns had been the victims of a miscarriage of justice by Portugal and that amaral had indeed defamed them. It could show just how much the SC got the law wrong
Which law would that be + cite please.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 07, 2017, 10:23:26 AM
European law article 8 The right to a family life It's been discussed at length and now guarantees the right to a good name
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: jassi on May 07, 2017, 02:10:06 PM
I guess the first sign to wait for is confirmation that an application to the court has been made. If that bridge isn't crossed anything else is fantasy.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2017, 02:13:09 PM
I guess the first sign to wait for is confirmation that an application to the court has been made. If that bridge isn't crossed anything else is fantasy.
As is any idea that the McCanns have any criminal involvement in Maddies disappearance Pure fantasy In fact there is a real possibility of an action in the European court and none parental involvement You need to rethink
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 07, 2017, 02:21:23 PM
The McCann's have been quite happy to use donated money.
As has Amaral. If the McCanns have a benefactor with deep pockets who will prevent them having to declare bankruptcy and lose their home good for them I say.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 07, 2017, 05:11:51 PM
Two high earning professionals and they don't mind being the recipients of Kennedy's charity. I myself would be mortified.
Good for you! Of course, we don't know whether they would accept it or not it or not so until then you're not really in a position to slag them off about it are you? 8)--))
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2017, 06:31:45 PM
As has Amaral. If the McCanns have a benefactor with deep pockets who will prevent them having to declare bankruptcy and lose their home good for them I say.
How peculiar to see needing and accepting charity as something to be applauded. I prefer to applaud those who accept the consequences of their actions and deal with them themselves.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 07, 2017, 06:39:14 PM
How peculiar to see needing and accepting charity as something to be applauded. I prefer to applaud those who accept the consequences of their actions and deal with them themselves.
I didn't applaud them for accepting charity, I merely pointed out that they were lucky to have wealthy benefactors on their side. Good for Amaral having hundreds of fans with fivers to spare too, eh?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2017, 06:44:36 PM
Let's get back to the Sky Documentary please.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 07, 2017, 06:45:34 PM
I still think Cuddle Cat is the clue to solving this case. He was the clue for Kate it should be the clue for us.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: misty on May 07, 2017, 11:47:40 PM
Was Colin Sutton involved in the investigative work carried out during the original scoping exercise ordered by Alan Johnson prior to OG being launched? We are told that Jim Gamble wrote the report which ended up resting in an in-box at the Home Office but there must have been a team of detectives involved somewhere along the line.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2017, 07:20:21 AM
As has Amaral. If the McCanns have a benefactor with deep pockets who will prevent them having to declare bankruptcy and lose their home good for them I say.
Yes, he had no choice as the court seized his assets as the results of the McCann's court action.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 07:34:10 AM
I didn't applaud them for accepting charity, I merely pointed out that they were lucky to have wealthy benefactors on their side. Good for Amaral having hundreds of fans with fivers to spare too, eh?
You saw nothing wrong with the idea of someone else paying their debts. Debts which are the result of a ludicrous attempt to silence someone who repeated the thoughts of the official investigation. Helping someone to defend themselves against such an attack is quite different.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 08, 2017, 08:22:19 AM
You saw nothing wrong with the idea of someone else paying their debts. Debts which are the result of a ludicrous attempt to silence someone who repeated the thoughts of the official investigation. Helping someone to defend themselves against such an attack is quite different.
As you find it difficult to empathise with the McCanns because you believe they hid Madeleine's body it would be virtually impossible for you to understand why I and Brian Kennedy and many others don't believe that an attempt to stop Amaral's campaign against them was ludicrous . In the same situation I'm sure I would do exactly the same, and if some rich bloke stepped in to help out with my legal costs I would be only too grateful if the alternative was bankruptcy and the threat of losing the family home.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 09:18:21 AM
As you find it difficult to empathise with the McCanns because you believe they hid Madeleine's body it would be virtually impossible for you to understand why I and Brian Kennedy and many others don't believe that an attempt to stop Amaral's campaign against them was ludicrous . In the same situation I'm sure I would do exactly the same, and if some rich bloke stepped in to help out with my legal costs I would be only too grateful if the alternative was bankruptcy and the threat of losing the family home.
Beginning on the night Madeleine disappeared the McCann's campaigned relentlessly to promote their abduction theory and discredit the PJ. Amaral replied with the investigation's version of events. They were proactive, he was reactive. That's the difference between them.
Some people care only about results, others care how the results are achieved.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: carlymichelle on May 08, 2017, 09:22:40 AM
Beginning on the night Madeleine disappeared the McCann's campaigned relentlessly to promote their abduction theory and discredit the PJ. Amaral replied with the investigation's version of events. They were proactive, he was reactive. That's the difference between them.
Some people care only about results, others care how the results are achieved.
some only care about protecting 2 adults when a child should be the focus imo
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2017, 10:03:02 AM
Beginning on the night Madeleine disappeared the McCann's campaigned relentlessly to promote their abduction theory and discredit the PJ. Amaral replied with the investigation's version of events. They were proactive, he was reactive. That's the difference between them.
Some people care only about results, others care how the results are achieved.
They were there ... they believed their daughter had been kidnapped ... any reason they shouldn't say so?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Benice on May 08, 2017, 10:17:50 AM
Two high earning professionals and they don't mind being the recipients of Kennedy's charity. I myself would be mortified.
You seem to be saying the McCanns should have always put their pride first and refused offers of massive financial help - even though that help could be of great assistance in finding their daughter and might even make the difference between finding her or not.
IOW they should have put their pride before finding their daughter.
Poor Madeleine.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
some only care about protecting 2 adults when a child should be the focus imo
Is that the child whose death is promoted, any initiative to find her impeded and the cost of justice for her derided ... or is it the child whose parents have worked on her behalf every single day over the past ten years and succeeded in galvanising a search for her by shaming two countries into action on her behalf?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 10:21:55 AM
You seem to be saying the McCanns should have always put their pride first and refused offers of massive financial help - even though that help could be of great assistance in finding their daughter and might even make the difference between finding her or not.
IOW they should have put their pride before finding their daughter.
Poor Madeleine.
I believe we are talking about paying the massive legal bills they racked up fighting to save their already tarnished reputations and not funding the search.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 10:26:31 AM
I believe we are talking about paying the massive legal bills they racked up fighting to save their already tarnished reputations and not funding the search.
Hardly massive.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: jassi on May 08, 2017, 10:32:03 AM
All relative, isn't it? If you have a few mil to play with, then a bill of maybe half a mil is OK, but things look different if you barely have that half mil.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 08, 2017, 10:32:58 AM
They were there ... they believed their daughter had been kidnapped ... any reason they shouldn't say so?
They didn't believe their daughter was kidknapped at all as they were 'searching' for her remember? all that searching they did, while on the phone to the media claiming no one yes no one was doing anything. Mean while back in Kansas, many people were searching some police officers stayin on from there shifts.
The kidknapped story was for the media to report as they realised questions would be asked and funily enough they had 'all' the answers.. like:' we could see the apartment', and regularily checking ( refraining to say listening at doors), an they were like 'sitting in their garden' and it is very common it in the UK to leave your children alone whlile you go and drink and dine. Remeber all the PR BS?.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 10:38:36 AM
All relative, isn't it? If you have a few mil to play with, then a bill of maybe half a mil is OK, but things look different if you barely have that half mil.
How do you know that it is Half a Million?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 10:39:42 AM
I believe we are talking about paying the massive legal bills they racked up fighting to save their already tarnished reputations and not funding the search.
AFAIAC they were fighting for Madeleine's right to be treated as a living child who could still be found - not a dead one who could just be forgotten about.
What harm is it doing to anyone if a benefactor paid the legal bills to enable them to do that - or paid for anything else for that matter?
Just another example of no matter what the McCanns say or do - it's wrong in some people's eyes.
All based on petty spite IMO.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 10:45:48 AM
You seem to be saying the McCanns should have always put their pride first and refused offers of massive financial help - even though that help could be of great assistance in finding their daughter and might even make the difference between finding her or not.
IOW they should have put their pride before finding their daughter.
Poor Madeleine.
Pride or reputation? Their reputation was very important, it seems. That's why they ended up owing money to the Portuguese Courts. Is taking responsibility for your own actions and paying your own debts related to your reputation? It is to mine.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2017, 10:46:24 AM
Beginning on the night Madeleine disappeared the McCann's campaigned relentlessly to promote their abduction theory and discredit the PJ. Amaral replied with the investigation's version of events. They were proactive, he was reactive. That's the difference between them.
Some people care only about results, others care how the results are achieved.
Amaral will not get any results when he doesn't understand the evidence which is pathetic for the lead detective
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: jassi on May 08, 2017, 10:47:23 AM
Pride or reputation? Their reputation was very important, it seems. That's why they ended up owing money to the Portuguese Courts. Is taking responsibility for your own actions and paying your own debts related to your reputation? It is to mine.
Amaral accepted money towards his legal fees and I see nothing wrong with that
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 10:52:09 AM
AFAIAC they were fighting for Madeleine's right to be treated as a living child who could still be found - not a dead one who could just be forgotten about.
What harm is it doing to anyone if a benefactor paid the legal bills to enable them to do that - or paid for anything else for that matter?
Just another example of no matter what the McCanns say or do - it's wrong in some people's eyes.
All based on petty spite IMO.
Madeleine's rights were satisfied when the first judgement found that Amaral's actions didn't affect the Portuguese investigation; they continued to follow leads. After that Madeleine didn't feature in the case, it was about their reputation.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2017, 10:54:49 AM
Madeleine's rights were satisfied when the first judgement found that Amaral's actions didn't affect the Portuguese investigation; they continued to follow leads. After that Madeleine didn't feature in the case, it was about their reputation.
Exactly.
It became all about Kate and Gerry Mccann, and their egos.
IMHO.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 10:56:12 AM
Amaral accepted money towards his legal fees and I see nothing wrong with that
Nor do I. He needed to defend himself and a freezing injunction stopped him from doing that. If he wants to sue someone, however, that's his decision and he should pay for it and bear the cost if he loses.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 08, 2017, 10:58:27 AM
AFAIAC they were fighting for Madeleine's right to be treated as a living child who could still be found - not a dead one who could just be forgotten about.
What harm is it doing to anyone if a benefactor paid the legal bills to enable them to do that - or paid for anything else for that matter?
Just another example of no matter what the McCanns say or do - it's wrong in some people's eyes.
All based on petty spite IMO.
No 'the right for Madeleine to be treated as a living child' is how the McCanns justified using the fund to pay their legal bills. It wasn't true then and, as the verdict in Lisbon has decided, it isn't true now.
For the sake of clarity I don't believe Kennedy, or any other rich benefactor, is paying the McCanns legal bills or why would we be hearing from 'sources close to the McCanns' that the legal bills will wipe the fund out?
I don't believe the McCanns have used a cent of their own money searching, suing or staying at 5 star hotels. Of course if you have proof that I am wrong I will be happy to change my opinion.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 11:01:47 AM
They were there ... they believed their daughter had been kidnapped ... any reason they shouldn't say so?
No reason whatsoever. It was one of the theories considered by the investigation. Promoting it as the only theory and actively working to silence other theories is another matter.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 08, 2017, 11:05:09 AM
No reason whatsoever. It was one of the theories considered by the investigation. Promoting it as the only theory and actively working to silence other theories is another matter.
You say "It was one of the theories considered by the investigation" but they must have rejected it for some reason. Were they valid reasons?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 08, 2017, 11:07:21 AM
No reason whatsoever. It was one of the theories considered by the investigation. Promoting it as the only theory and actively working to silence other theories is another matter.
And up until Amaral Won, it was the main favorite story...wow that was a game changer! they lost control of that tsunami of global news control. Fake news is now being addressed.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 08, 2017, 11:13:50 AM
And up until Amaral Won, it was the main favorite story...wow that was a game changer! they lost control of that tsunami of global news control. Fake news is now being addressed.
Amaral won the right to say his piece, but I have not heard anyone saying he was correct. You are confusing the two aspects.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 11:15:43 AM
No reason whatsoever. It was one of the theories considered by the investigation. Promoting it as the only theory and actively working to silence other theories is another matter.
There has been a lot of discussion over the past week about Madeleine's case. Don't know if it escaped your notice or not but it certainly didn't mine ... no-one is running with any of the Amaral theories ... from frozen defrosting bodies to cremations.
You and others still seem beguiled by much of what has been dismissed by anyone with any grasp of reality as irrelevant.
" ... actively working to silence other theories ..." &%+((£ I think that is a stoatar!
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2017, 11:20:37 AM
Madeleine's rights were satisfied when the first judgement found that Amaral's actions didn't affect the Portuguese investigation; they continued to follow leads. After that Madeleine didn't feature in the case, it was about their reputation.
Correction The court found it hadn't been proved that the book damaged the search Of course it did but it's difficult to prove
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2017, 11:22:24 AM
Pride or reputation? Their reputation was very important, it seems. That's why they ended up owing money to the Portuguese Courts. Is taking responsibility for your own actions and paying your own debts related to your reputation? It is to mine.
The mccanns are having to take responsibility for the actions of the abductor
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2017, 11:23:37 AM
And up until Amaral Won, it was the main favorite story...wow that was a game changer! they lost control of that tsunami of global news control. Fake news is now being addressed.
There isn't really a great deal of interest in Amaral's win outside this small corner of the internet. Who cares, apart from when it is mentioned with bemusement? I think it will be a different story with the appeal to the ECHR and the result of that.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 11:26:25 AM
Excuse me. Any news of The McCanns being arrested any time soon? No? I thought not.
I can only guess at how much this must grate on some.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2017, 11:46:08 AM
There has been a lot of discussion over the past week about Madeleine's case. Don't know if it escaped your notice or not but it certainly didn't mine ... no-one is running with any of the Amaral theories ... from frozen defrosting bodies to cremations.
You and others still seem beguiled by much of what has been dismissed by anyone with any grasp of reality as irrelevant.
" ... actively working to silence other theories ..." &%+((£ I think that is a stoatar!
Why is it supporters seem to prefer arguing with Amaral's theories rather than the sceptics on here?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 11:47:15 AM
There isn't really a great deal of interest in Amaral's win outside this small corner of the internet. Who cares, apart from when it is mentioned with bemusement? I think it will be a different story with the appeal to the ECHR and the result of that.
No doubt there will be passing interest if it ever happens.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2017, 11:50:47 AM
Why is it supporters seem to prefer arguing with Amaral's theories rather than the sceptics on here?
There is nothing to argue about re amarals theories The evidence he thinks exists to support his theories doesn't I find it odd that a detective who does not understand the basic evidence gets so much support on here and elsewhere
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 11:55:56 AM
Excuse me. Any news of The McCanns being arrested any time soon? No? I thought not.
I can only guess at how much this must grate on some.
Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;
1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews? 2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern? 3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid? 4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into? 5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't? 6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 08, 2017, 12:02:12 PM
Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;
1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews? 2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern? 3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid? 4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into? 5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't? 6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.
I suggest these questions be transferred to a new thread for there are some really good issues to be discussed there.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 08, 2017, 12:09:40 PM
Madeleine's rights were satisfied when the first judgement found that Amaral's actions didn't affect the Portuguese investigation; they continued to follow leads. After that Madeleine didn't feature in the case, it was about their reputation.
It was the effect that the claim Amaral made in his book that Madeleine was dead had on his readers which concerned the McCanns. i.e. the fact that people would believe she was dead because of what he claimed in his book and stop looking for her.
Unfortunately it was not physically possible to quantify any such damage. And therefore IIRC it was deemed to be not proved.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Robittybob1 on May 08, 2017, 12:43:07 PM
It was the effect that the claim Amaral made in his book that Madeleine was dead had on his readers which concerned the McCanns. i.e. the fact that people would believe she was dead because of what he claimed in his book and stop looking for her.
Unfortunately it was not physically possible to quantify any such damage. And therefore IIRC it was deemed to be not proved.
Should they have employed a "marketing" researcher to test the null hypothesis that Amaral's claim made no difference to people's attitude toward contributing to the Find Madeleine fund?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 01:36:11 PM
It was the effect that the claim Amaral made in his book that Madeleine was dead had on his readers which concerned the McCanns. i.e. the fact that people would believe she was dead because of what he claimed in his book and stop looking for her.
Unfortunately it was not physically possible to quantify any such damage. And therefore IIRC it was deemed to be not proved.
It wouldn't have been difficult to engage a polling company in Portugal. Apparently in March 2008 the McCanns were "‘encouraged’ by poll support". Of course the polls also showed that people in the Algarve were unconvinced of their innocence before Amaral released his book. Another one after the release of Amaral's book might have helped, though, if the figures changed for the worst;
The Correio da Manha poll found that 38.6% of those questioned still believe Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in their daughter’s disappearance in the Algarve. On the other hand, 30.7% thought the couple, from Rothley, in Leicestershire, were completely innocent.
This compares to an earlier poll run by the Portuguese newspaper in which 39.9% of people interviewed thought the couple were guilty and 26.8% believed they were not to blame.
Beginning on the night Madeleine disappeared the McCann's campaigned relentlessly to promote their abduction theory and discredit the PJ. Amaral replied with the investigation's version of events. They were proactive, he was reactive. That's the difference between them.
Some people care only about results, others care how the results are achieved.
That's your point of view, however it's quite easy to see it from a completely different perspective (if one is able to empathise) - the McCanns as victims convinced their daughter had been abducted and the police only interested in stitching them up, Amaral on the attack, his pride having been bruised, accusing them of all sorts of far-fetched and macabre crimes.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 08, 2017, 02:26:34 PM
That's your point of view, however it's quite easy to see it from a completely different perspective (if one is able to empathise) - the McCanns as victims convinced their daughter had been abducted and the police only interested in stitching them up, Amaral on the attack, his pride having been bruised, accusing them of all sorts of far-fetched and macabre crimes.
Bilton was asked to spy on Murat for 'exclusives'. How did that help find Madeleine ?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 08, 2017, 02:28:03 PM
No 'the right for Madeleine to be treated as a living child' is how the McCanns justified using the fund to pay their legal bills. It wasn't true then and, as the verdict in Lisbon has decided, it isn't true now.
For the sake of clarity I don't believe Kennedy, or any other rich benefactor, is paying the McCanns legal bills or why would we be hearing from 'sources close to the McCanns' that the legal bills will wipe the fund out?
I don't believe the McCanns have used a cent of their own money searching, suing or staying at 5 star hotels. Of course if you have proof that I am wrong I will be happy to change my opinion.
Like all your opinions they are based on nothing more than a deep dislike of the McCanns and your own "gut feel" but thanks for sharing, I'm sure it helps you to get it off your chest. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 08, 2017, 02:34:26 PM
Like all your opinions they are based on nothing more than a deep dislike of the McCanns and your own "gut feel" but thanks for sharing, I'm sure it helps you to get it off your chest. 8(0(*
So no proof just a need to defend the McCanns at all costs.
I see you didn't answer my question some days ago regarding your need to still defend the McCanns even though they have been declared 'not suspects' by, it would seem, everyone in authority. Why was that?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Brietta on May 08, 2017, 02:44:45 PM
Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;
1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews? 2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern? 3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid? 4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into? 5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't? 6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.
You appear to know all about it so why don't you tell us about the time Madeleine ran away and hid?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 03:10:35 PM
Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;
1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews? 2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern? 3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid? 4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into? 5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't? 6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.
Same old same old.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 03:12:34 PM
Bilton was asked to spy on Murat for 'exclusives'. How did that help find Madeleine ?
Who asked him? Could it be that the McCann camp believed Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance at that time? Turn it around - why if Gerry had dumped Madeleine's body in a bin would they be asking a Panorama reporter to "spy on Murat"?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 08, 2017, 03:20:32 PM
So no proof just a need to defend the McCanns at all costs.
I see you didn't answer my question some days ago regarding your need to still defend the McCanns even though they have been declared 'not suspects' by, it would seem, everyone in authority. Why was that?
Because it was an attempt by you to turn the thread into an examination of MY motives. Do you want to do this here? why not start a new thread about it or PM and I will gladly answer, though I fear you will be disappointed with the reply.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 08, 2017, 03:22:28 PM
So no proof just a need to defend the McCanns at all costs.
I see you didn't answer my question some days ago regarding your need to still defend the McCanns even though they have been declared 'not suspects' by, it would seem, everyone in authority. Why was that?
BTW, my reply does not "defend the McCanns at all costs", it simply points out that your opinion is based on nothing much, certainly not proof such as you have demanded of me!
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 08, 2017, 03:23:17 PM
Because it was an attempt by you to turn the thread into an examination of MY motives. Do you want to do this here? why not start a new thread about it or PM and I will gladly answer, though I fear you will be disappointed with the reply.
Yes I want to do this here.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2017, 03:25:20 PM
Who asked him? Could it be that the McCann camp believed Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance at that time? Turn it around - why if Gerry had dumped Madeleine's body in a bin would they be asking a Panorama reporter to "spy on Murat"?
"The McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focusing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple's opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat."
Processos Vol X Pages 2533 - 2534
Date: 2007/09/03
For : Goncalo Amaral
From Ricardo Paiva, Inspector
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 08, 2017, 03:26:02 PM
LOL, roll up your sleeves then. Let's take this baby off topic, Faithlilly wants to have it out here and now.... 8()(((@#
Well, cyber fisticuffs.
That's a new one on me. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 08, 2017, 03:45:11 PM
To answer your question Faithlilly - I am not defending the McCanns, they don't need me to defend them, what I post here makes very little difference whatsoever to anything or anybody. I post for myself only, the case interests me, I used to post about other conspiracy theories because they interest me. I used to argue daily with Holocaust deniers and they'd ask me why, if the Holocaust was established fact, I felt the need to defend the Jews especially when I am not Jewish - same answer really, although in the case of the "Holohoax" I think it's an example of a conspiracy that seems to have taken hold in a rather alarming way, so perhaps more people should spend more time challenging it online though the intransigence on the subject is similar to the intransigence in the debate on this case. Ultimately it's a futile exercise as once the conspiracy has taken hold of a person's imagination and the propaganda has done its work there's nothing a sane, rational person can say that will change such a person's mind. Basically I enjoy the debate and people's beliefs in conspiracies I do find fascinating. I can't help it, so sue me. 8**8:/:
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2017, 03:52:49 PM
Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;
1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews? 2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern? 3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid? 4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into? 5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't? 6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.
1. You are assuming the twice translated non verbatim statements are correct 2 the McCanns had more important things on their minds 3 isn't this a myth 4 because the window was open 5 you have no real evidence that the McCanns told the gmc this at all 6 you are taking statements out of context
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2017, 04:06:33 PM
BTW, my reply does not "defend the McCanns at all costs", it simply points out that your opinion is based on nothing much, certainly not proof such as you have demanded of me!
Defend the McCanns at all costs What typical sceptic rubbish
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2017, 06:01:31 PM
1. You are assuming the twice translated non verbatim statements are correct 2 the McCanns had more important things on their minds 3 isn't this a myth 4 because the window was open 5 you have no real evidence that the McCanns told the gmc this at all 6 you are taking statements out of context
It is the McCann's answers which would be interesting, not yours. I wonder if they would match with each other. (Obviously they'd have to let go of each other and go into separate rooms)
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 08, 2017, 06:05:56 PM
I can't believe I'm reading some of this.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 09, 2017, 02:29:46 AM
It is the McCann's answers which would be interesting, not yours. I wonder if they would match with each other. (Obviously they'd have to let go of each other and go into separate rooms)
The point I am making is that there are simple answers to your questions The one re the GMC has been raised by you before You are making an assumption that Gerry told this to the GMC I have never heard the McCanns refer to the eye defect as a coloboma you will not have a cite for this It is another instance of someone else using a word and then sceptics assuming Gerry used it Assumptions assumptions assumptions
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: slartibartfast on May 09, 2017, 07:15:25 AM
The point I am making is that there are simple answers to your questions The one re the GMC has been raised by you before You are making an assumption that Gerry told this to the GMC I have never heard the McCanns refer to the eye defect as a coloboma you will not have a cite for this It is another instance of someone else using a word and then sceptics assuming Gerry used it Assumptions assumptions assumptions
To use someone else's argument, if it is not denied.....
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 09, 2017, 08:40:36 AM
The point I am making is that there are simple answers to your questions The one re the GMC has been raised by you before You are making an assumption that Gerry told this to the GMC I have never heard the McCanns refer to the eye defect as a coloboma you will not have a cite for this It is another instance of someone else using a word and then sceptics assuming Gerry used it Assumptions assumptions assumptions
Ha ha, it was The Lancet actually, my mistake. It was the 'family' who told The Lancet, so how did they make that mistake? If it had been discussed they would surely have been reassured by her doctor parents that it was 'just a fleck of colour'. A coloboma is a specific condition requiring examination to discover which part of the eye is involved and ongoing monitoring to check eyesight and to make sure there's no other associated health problems.
Piers Morgan asked about it and Gerry waffled;
"G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris.
I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems."
If it was an additional bit of colour it can't be called a coloboma, 'technically' or otherwise. A coloboma is not a defect in the iris, it's a hole in one of the structures of the eye, such as the iris, retina, choroid, or optic disc. If Madeleine had one it would have been picked up in her infant checks and she would have been referred to an ophthalmologist. She either had one or she didn't and her parents would know.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2017, 09:34:57 AM
Of course it is Weak evidence But certainly evidence
So there's no evidence that Gerry McCann denied that Madeleine had a coloboma, so he probably didn't. It would be rather difficult if 'the family' told The Lancet she did have one.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: slartibartfast on May 09, 2017, 02:10:31 PM
Ha ha, it was The Lancet actually, my mistake. It was the 'family' who told The Lancet, so how did they make that mistake? If it had been discussed they would surely have been reassured by her doctor parents that it was 'just a fleck of colour'. A coloboma is a specific condition requiring examination to discover which part of the eye is involved and ongoing monitoring to check eyesight and to make sure there's no other associated health problems.
Piers Morgan asked about it and Gerry waffled;
"G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris.
I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems."
If it was an additional bit of colour it can't be called a coloboma, 'technically' or otherwise. A coloboma is not a defect in the iris, it's a hole in one of the structures of the eye, such as the iris, retina, choroid, or optic disc. If Madeleine had one it would have been picked up in her infant checks and she would have been referred to an ophthalmologist. She either had one or she didn't and her parents would know.
WOuld you kindly explain why any of this matters?? Coloboma, eye defect, it makes no difference to the general public who were asked to look out for a little girl with a fleck in her eye. If the McCanns had lied and said "Madeleine has a coloboma" why did they do so - for what advantage to them, and second, if they said Madeleine has a coloboma why did Gerry then say later he didn't think it was a coloboma? Apart from trotting out the cliche "confusion is good" perhaps you could give this matter some thought and let me know why this is of critical importance to this case.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2017, 07:31:11 PM
WOuld you kindly explain why any of this matters?? Coloboma, eye defect, it makes no difference to the general public who were asked to look out for a little girl with a fleck in her eye. If the McCanns had lied and said "Madeleine has a coloboma" why did they do so - for what advantage to them, and second, if they said Madeleine has a coloboma why did Gerry then say later he didn't think it was a coloboma? Apart from trotting out the cliche "confusion is good" perhaps you could give this matter some thought and let me know why this is of critical importance to this case.
I can't remember how it came up; you'll have to read back. It was a great marketing ploy, that's for sure. Look! Look into my eyes! Pity it turned into a hardly noticeable 'fleck' later. All those eager sighters peering into children's eyes. As Kate told Piers Morgan they would have to be very close to her to see it.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 09, 2017, 07:53:50 PM
I can't remember how it came up; you'll have to read back. It was a great marketing ploy, that's for sure. Look! Look into my eyes! Pity it turned into a hardly noticeable 'fleck' later. All those eager sighters peering into children's eyes. As Kate told Piers Morgan they would have to be very close to her to see it.
Didn't Clarence Mitchell once organise a press conference where any poster, as in bill poster, to do with case had "o"s with lines coming out at the eight o'clock position? In the light of what followed and is being said now, apparently, maybe CM should change his name to Don John.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 09, 2017, 08:41:56 PM
I can't remember how it came up; you'll have to read back. It was a great marketing ploy, that's for sure. Look! Look into my eyes! Pity it turned into a hardly noticeable 'fleck' later. All those eager sighters peering into children's eyes. As Kate told Piers Morgan they would have to be very close to her to see it.
Madeleine was a little blonde girl. The world is full of little blond girls. There is something slightly unusual about Madeleine that sets her apart from the majority of little blond girls. That would s a fleck in her eye. If you can't understand why this information might have helped in the hunt for the child then that really is your problem.
ETA: you didn't explain why you think this (non)issue is worth raising again - it's not the first time it's been discussed here so you must think it has some importance, what is it? A quick search on this forum reveals you have raised this subject on more than half a dozen different threads http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=search2
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ferryman on May 09, 2017, 08:58:43 PM
A plain application of logic and common sense that no one in their right minds would produce an efit of a man they thought was Gerry is all that's needed, here.
But allying it the fact that Mrs Smith is on record as saying that the Smiths' hearts are breaking for the McCanns, and that they stand ready to assist the McCanns in any way they can to get Madeleine back definitely helps.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 09, 2017, 09:37:54 PM
Madeleine was a little blonde girl. The world is full of little blond girls. There is something slightly unusual about Madeleine that sets her apart from the majority of little blond girls. That would s a fleck in her eye. If you can't understand why this information might have helped in the hunt for the child then that really is your problem.
ETA: you didn't explain why you think this (non)issue is worth raising again - it's not the first time it's been discussed here so you must think it has some importance, what is it?
Well about 25% worldwide are blonde. This one does not have blue eyes but has a fleck. Should be easy enough to spot.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: slartibartfast on May 09, 2017, 10:33:51 PM
Madeleine was a little blonde girl. The world is full of little blond girls. There is something slightly unusual about Madeleine that sets her apart from the majority of little blond girls. That would s a fleck in her eye. If you can't understand why this information might have helped in the hunt for the child then that really is your problem.
ETA: you didn't explain why you think this (non)issue is worth raising again - it's not the first time it's been discussed here so you must think it has some importance, what is it? A quick search on this forum reveals you have raised this subject on more than half a dozen different threads http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=search2
Well, The Sun is still on about it too; Kate and Gerry should tell them it's 'just a fleck';
3rd May 2007
THE MARK OF MADDIE What is coloboma, Madeleine McCann’s eye defect? What causes it and how rare is it? Here’s all you need to know https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3426444/coloboma-madeleine-mccann-eye-defect-rare-cause/
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2017, 06:59:59 AM
Well, The Sun is still on about it too; Kate and Gerry should tell them it's 'just a fleck';
3rd May 2007
THE MARK OF MADDIE What is coloboma, Madeleine McCann’s eye defect? What causes it and how rare is it? Here’s all you need to know https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3426444/coloboma-madeleine-mccann-eye-defect-rare-cause/
I have never heard the McCanns refer to the fleck as a coloboma and I would say you havent either Provide a cite
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Alfie on May 10, 2017, 08:45:30 AM
Well, The Sun is still on about it too; Kate and Gerry should tell them it's 'just a fleck';
3rd May 2007
THE MARK OF MADDIE What is coloboma, Madeleine McCann’s eye defect? What causes it and how rare is it? Here’s all you need to know https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/3426444/coloboma-madeleine-mccann-eye-defect-rare-cause/
Why should they, what does it matter? You reckon a member of the public is going to see a teenage girl who resembles Madeleine McCann with a fleck in her eye and say to themselves: hmmm that just looks like a fleck not a coloboma so I won't bother to mention it to anyone "?
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: faithlilly on May 10, 2017, 11:30:54 AM
Why should they, what does it matter? You reckon a member of the public is going to see a teenage girl who resembles Madeleine McCann with a fleck in her eye and say to themselves: hmmm that just looks like a fleck not a coloboma so I won't bother to mention it to anyone "?
It matters because it yet again displays the McCanns predisposition for playing fast and loose with the truth.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: Eleanor on May 10, 2017, 11:40:13 AM
It matters because it yet again displays the McCanns predisposition for playing fast and loose with the truth.
No it does not.
Title: Re: Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 29, 2017, 07:47:09 PM
I am about to post my view of the Sky 10th anniversary special on my blog.
I would like to add a few comments about what the programme revealed, if anything, to the armchair detective brigade.
I have re-read this thread back to 2 May 2017 to garner what I can about what members picked up. I am not interested in a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I am interested in whether it brought anything new to your attention.