After Six Years the Only Sign of Not Being Involved

[Rachel Granada]

Well as i said fraud would be the least of their worries. As would repaying press etc. This is a fight for their lives.

In relation to slinking into obscurity please see my previous post. They haven't been able to even if they wanted to:

Albertini, in response can I just echo what Benice has said above.  Come on, the mental pressure of living a lie every day all these years would be torture.  In my opinion, guilty people would have cracked long ago just living under this pressure.

[AnneGuedes]

What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil.

Not really so. They'll have a UK team observing what a PT police force will obtain at their request. Portugal being notorious for its hospitality, my guess is things will be fine as they were fine in 2007.

[Redblossom]

Diane Webster also looked for Madeleine.  As far as I know no-one saw her and only she has mentioned it.  If that is true then do we have to assume therefore that without witnesses - she is lying.

IMO this is just another example of petty nitpicking with hindsight    The rule seems to be that unless everything the McCanns did or said can be confirmed by independent witnesses then according to some - they are lying or it didn't happen.   We cannot possibly know every single word that was spoken or every tiny move that was made by the McCanns and their friends that night.  We only have a general idea. 

To behave as if everything they did and everything they said is recorded in the files  - and claim that if it isn't there it didn't happen, is totally unrealistic and also unfair IMO.

Missed this.
Keep  your hair on! its not nitpicking at all and your example about Diane Webster is not the same by any stretch. But never mind.

[AnneGuedes]

Albertini, in response can I just echo what Benice has said above.  Come on, the mental pressure of living a lie every day all these years would be torture.  In my opinion, guilty people would have cracked long ago just living under this pressure.

Redblossom said that.
I agree, but the affective relationships are the issue. What torture is the worst ? The torture of having lied with consequences I didn't foresee, a torture though that time has dimmed (because that's time work to build slowly indifference) or the torture of those I love if I confess and the terrible risk to lose their love for ever ?

[Rachel Granada]

Redblossom said that.
I agree, but the affective relationships are the issue. What torture is the worst ? The torture of having lied with consequences I didn't foresee, a torture though that time has dimmed (because that's time work to build slowly indifference) or the torture of those I love if I confess and the terrible risk to lose their love for ever ?

I've just tried to imagine how it must be living a lie, Anne.  If they were complicit they would also be coping with guilt and grief.  I don't think I could live like that even for a week, never mind years.  Living in fear of a knock on the door from the police, fear of being exposed.  Just my thoughts.

If they were complicit and confessed, I would hope that the family would support them?  Hate the sin, love the sinnner and all that.  Who knows.

[Benice]

Missed this.
Keep  your hair on! its not nitpicking at all and your example about Diane Webster is not the same by any stretch. But never mind.

Why is it different for Diane Webster?
-------

Kate went out to speak to the GNR - she then went up and down the road looking for Madeleine - no-one else saw her.  Big deal.      Why do you think she should have regarded that as such a massive piece of information at the time  - that she should have made sure she had witnesses and made sure she told everyone that's what she'd done.      Why would she be even thinking like that?    It's makes no sense.     She ran up and down a road  looking for her daughter.   How could she know that years later  some people would be demanding the evidence to prove it - and so she should have been making sure she had that evidence - or she wouldn't be believed? 

If she could have seen into the future and known that every word she said and also every word she didn't say was going to be pored over and scrutinised in an attempt to find fault - then I'm sure she would have behaved differently.  But she didn't know, so she behaved like any other normal human being - for which she is now being torn to shreds in some quarters - all with the benefit of hindsight.     IMO






 


 

[Redblossom]

Why is it different for Diane Webster?
-------

Kate went out to speak to the GNR - she then went up and down the road looking for Madeleine - no-one else saw her.  Big deal.      Why do you think she should have regarded that as such a massive piece of information at the time  - that she should have made sure she had witnesses and made sure she told everyone that's what she'd done.      Why would she be even thinking like that?    It's makes no sense.     She ran up and down a road  looking for her daughter.   How could she know that years later  some people would be demanding the evidence to prove it - and so she should have been making sure she had that evidence - or she wouldn't be believed? 

If she could have seen into the future and known that every word she said and also every word she didn't say was going to be pored over and scrutinised in an attempt to find fault - then I'm sure she would have behaved differently.  But she didn't know, so she behaved like any other normal human being - for which she is now being torn to shreds in some quarters - all with the benefit of hindsight.     IMO

Yes, you are quite right obviously as always. but do lay off the exageration and dramatics,its, in Gerrys words, frankly boring.

[Jazzy]

Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard

then again if you were complicit in any crime, would you  ever stop trying to evade it?/consequences
 >@@(*&)

I'd agree, the profile they have kept up, keeping their child in the media eye is evidence of their not being involved.

If your child were missing, would you allow her to be forgotten, would you ever stop trying to find her?

[Albertini]

I'd agree, the profile they have kept up, keeping their child in the media eye is evidence of their not being involved.

If your child were missing, would you allow her to be forgotten, would you ever stop trying to find her?

No, it is not evidence they were not involved.

[Jazzy]

You disagree with Redblossom's op then?

[Albertini]

You disagree with Redblossom's op then?

Nope,  i disagree with your assessment that their media campaign and public profile is evidence they are innocent.

[Jazzy]

Really? I was agreeing with Redblossom though.

[Albertini]

Really? I was agreeing with Redblossom though.

Where does he say that it is evidence that they are innocent?

Also note the second paragraph from the OP:

then again if you were complicit in any crime, would you  ever stop trying to evade it?/consequences

[Jazzy]

Posted on what she said here:

Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard

I addressed her second line also.

[AnneGuedes]

I've just tried to imagine how it must be living a lie, Anne.  If they were complicit they would also be coping with guilt and grief.  I don't think I could live like that even for a week, never mind years.  Living in fear of a knock on the door from the police, fear of being exposed.  Just my thoughts.

If they were complicit and confessed, I would hope that the family would support them?  Hate the sin, love the sinnner and all that.  Who knows.

I think the family would support them, some at least, through love, yes. But I'm not sure about their children, though there are two, that helps a lot. Shame would be a powerful argument to go forward, Rachel, actually imo it was the reason why all this started.