After Six Years the Only Sign of Not Being Involved

[Lace]

Surely if someone who was guilty of a crime of hiding their child's body would make it obvious that they were searching?     Searching in full view of everyone and screaming and crying for good measure?

Someone guilty of this crime would then let it all die down.    Fade away saying 'well we looked for years and there has been no sign of her,   so sadly we must assume she is dead'.

This is a far cry to what the McCann's are doing.

The McCann's did search but when Kate went out by herself there were no witness's.

Amaral made a point of showing on  video,  Kate McCann out on the veranda looking as though she was crying
Making it sound that she was play acting.    To me though it looked as though she had gone outside to be alone to cry in private.   If she had wanted to put on a show all she had to do was leave the apartment,   there were enough photographers there to take lots of photos then she could have cried for them.

During the appeal to the abductor,   Kate McCann kept her tears at bay.   There had been plenty it was said before she went before the camera.   What a perfect time that would have been to have put on  show.

For the past six years the McCann's have kept up the campaign to find Madeleine.    They wanted a review they want the case to be opened.

That is not the actions of guilty parents.    They could easily have let everything die down as say 'well we have searched for years and there has been no sign of Madeleine,   sadly we have to come to the conclusion that she is dead'.     They haven't done that quite the opposite in fact.



.

[Lyall]

Haven't heard of the Gordon Burn book Lyall, is it a good read?

That may depend upon your view of the case. He clearly wasn't a fan of modern media and those who spin, and the way this case was reported obviously concerned him - as did the public's response to that reporting.

Poor fella died soon after writing it so we'll never know now exactly what he meant.

[Rachel Granada]

That may depend upon your view of the case. He clearly wasn't a fan of modern media and those who spin, and the way this case was reported obviously concerned him - as did the public's response to that reporting.

Poor fella died soon after writing it so we'll never know now exactly what he meant.

OK thanks I will look out for it at the library.

[AnneGuedes]

I find interesting the mention of the Rosenberg little boys (at the time). These poor boys (luckily two) grew up willing to prove their parents' innocence (remember Ethel wrote some hours before the execution they were innocent, "not capable to betray their conscience"..), a rather popular idea among intellectuals. But they welcomed the truth with dignity when by chance it popped up.

[Lyall]

Both sons seem to be remarkable people AG, like their parents. You are better informed about that case than me (I had a quick search though)

[AnneGuedes]

Both sons seem to be remarkable people AG, like their parents. You are better informed about that case than me (I had a quick search though)

Their execution is a shame anyhow. Ethel's brother played a very weird game.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/nyregion/12spy.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0

[Rachel Granada]

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.

Just my personal thoughts here Anne, but I cannot imagine anyone living under that fear for so long, the fear of SY finding something, the fear of the knock on the door.

I really hope that no-one on the forum has been unfortunate enough to suffer from panic/fear attacks and agoraphobia but I have.  The fear is horrible.  It is sheer terror.  To actually have to live with fear for so many years, I just can't fathom it.  I don't want to sound over-dramatic but I believe it could kill someone.  JMO.

[AnneGuedes]

I believe that too, Rachel, read Maupassant's Horla.
But there's more terrible to fear than the pot aux roses revealed : the look of those you love on you.

[sadie]

Surely if someone who was guilty of a crime of hiding their child's body would make it obvious that they were searching?     Searching in full view of everyone and screaming and crying for good measure?

Someone guilty of this crime would then let it all die down.    Fade away saying 'well we looked for years and there has been no sign of her,   so sadly we must assume she is dead'.

This is a far cry to what the McCann's are doing.

The McCann's did search but when Kate went out by herself there were no witness's.

Amaral made a point of showing on  video,  Kate McCann out on the veranda looking as though she was crying
Making it sound that she was play acting.    To me though it looked as though she had gone outside to be alone to cry in private.   If she had wanted to put on a show all she had to do was leave the apartment,   there were enough photographers there to take lots of photos then she could have cried for them.

During the appeal to the abductor,   Kate McCann kept her tears at bay.   There had been plenty it was said before she went before the camera.   What a perfect time that would have been to have put on  show.
For the past six years the McCann's have kept up the campaign to find Madeleine.    They wanted a review they want the case to be opened.

That is not the actions of guilty parents.    They could easily have let everything die down as say 'well we have searched for years and there has been no sign of Madeleine,   sadly we have to come to the conclusion that she is dead'.     They haven't done that quite the opposite in fact.

Apparently she was advised to make every effort NOT to cry in front of the media, because the sort of man who enjoyed hurting little children would be turned on by her crying.  I have no idea whether this is true, but it was talked about in the early days

However, what she was like away from the media is another matter.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
 
 
The following day we saw Kate McCann when she came to collect the twins from the creche at lunchtime, she was distraught and broke down sobbing.

We didn't have any other involvement with their group for the remainder of our holiday and flew home on the Saturday. On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.

It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.

Yep and as said in Laces post, she went out searching when no-one was around, so no-one saw the state she was in.

Cant remember whether it was Rachels statement, or Fionas, but that tore my heart apart as I re-read it a couple of days ago.


How ignoramouses can sit around being judgemental about people they know little, or nothing about, does my faith in human nature in

[Albertini]

Apparently she was advised to make every effort NOT to cry in front of the media, because the sort of man who enjoyed hurting little children would be turned on by her crying.  I have no idea whether this is true, but it was talked about in the early days

However, what she was like away from the media is another matter.

And you have inadvertently knocked down one of the key tenets of the theory they could not be involved. The idea that they couldn't hide or mask their feelings if they were involved is rather shot down in flames as we know that they were told to mask their real feelings to the media and they could indeed do it.

What you are syaing fits in with my own belief that there is primary source evidence that when required or considered to be necessary the parents, particularly Kate McCann, are extremely skilled at masking their real feelings very successfully even when under enormous emotional and other stress.

Indeed even Menezez seems to have been taken in by it stating in the final report:

"the normal behaviour that they adopted until the disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements."

Oprah transcript:

'Four days after Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns held another press conference pleading for their daughter's safe return. Kate remained calm as she spoke, but the tabloids would use her appearance against her, saying her lack of emotion implied guilt. "I'd spent 72 hours crying, and you suddenly almost feel a little bit numb," Kate says. She'd also spoken with a behavioural expert who'd given specific advice on how to act at the press conference, Kate says. "They said, 'It's quite important that you don't show any emotion, because the abductor could get some kind of adverse kick out of it,'" she says. "When you get the feeling that if you do [something] it could be detrimental in some way to your daughter, there's a huge pressure on you to do well."

Though it may have done more harm than good, Kate says she doesn't regret taking the behavioural expert's advice. "It was advice given with the best intention," she says.'

And from Madeleine, page 112:

'In fact I would soon be advised by British police experts to try and stay as calm as possible and not to show any emotion in public, so it was probably no bad thing that my feelings seemed to be temporarily on holiday that day. The thinking behind this advice was that Madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick pout of my distress and perhaps change his behaviour in some way.'

She adds: 'Of course we were terrified by the implications of this theory. It meant that quite natural actions or expressions of emotion caught on camera could potentially jeopardise Madeleine's safety.'

[Jazzy]

WhatI actually said was that their placing themselves in the limelight for so long is to me a possible / even probable indication, the only indication, for me at least, that Madeleine was abducted and they were uninvolved, and for all the reasons given by other posters here. Doesnt mean I or they are right. There have been cases where the guilty party pretended to the media, albeit never for so long afaiaw.
I do find it a struggle to think thry would live this lie, but what if theyhave no choice?

You dont know if its not a case of not being able to get off the tigers back!

Their reluctance to speak candidly and without a script and without throwing hissy fits and stropping at questions they didnt like, and answer unscreened questions and use  spokespeople over the years reinforces my belief that they never told the truth.

I am also amazed that their first priority was to engage a comprehensive group of lawyers and consultants, in Gerrys own words, with the money they were given by the public to find their child. Then the frenzy of trying to discredit dogs, the pj, Mr Amaral, other people, and the rewriting of history in the scathing embroidery of the truth Book! And their uncountable interviews where they said one thing and said another elsewhere, etc,etc, and that is just a very small portion of reasons I have to doubt them


I could be wrong which is a bit more than some of your lot can muster

Btw its called honest informed  opinion and there is no law against THAT thank heavens

That's a shame, I thought you had posted something I agreed with. Never mind.

[Lace]

And you have inadvertently knocked down one of the key tenets of the theory they could not be involved. The idea that they couldn't hide or mask their feelings if they were involved is rather shot down in flames as we know that they were told to mask their real feelings to the media and they could indeed do it.

What you are syaing fits in with my own belief that there is primary source evidence that when required or considered to be necessary the parents, particularly Kate McCann, are extremely skilled at masking their real feelings very successfully even when under enormous emotional and other stress.

Indeed even Menezez seems to have been taken in by it stating in the final report:

"the normal behaviour that they adopted until the disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements."

Oprah transcript:

'Four days after Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns held another press conference pleading for their daughter's safe return. Kate remained calm as she spoke, but the tabloids would use her appearance against her, saying her lack of emotion implied guilt. "I'd spent 72 hours crying, and you suddenly almost feel a little bit numb," Kate says. She'd also spoken with a behavioural expert who'd given specific advice on how to act at the press conference, Kate says. "They said, 'It's quite important that you don't show any emotion, because the abductor could get some kind of adverse kick out of it,'" she says. "When you get the feeling that if you do [something] it could be detrimental in some way to your daughter, there's a huge pressure on you to do well."

Though it may have done more harm than good, Kate says she doesn't regret taking the behavioural expert's advice. "It was advice given with the best intention," she says.'

And from Madeleine, page 112:

'In fact I would soon be advised by British police experts to try and stay as calm as possible and not to show any emotion in public, so it was probably no bad thing that my feelings seemed to be temporarily on holiday that day. The thinking behind this advice was that Madeleine's abductor might get some kind of perverted kick pout of my distress and perhaps change his behaviour in some way.'

She adds: 'Of course we were terrified by the implications of this theory. It meant that quite natural actions or expressions of emotion caught on camera could potentially jeopardise Madeleine's safety.'

The point I was trying to make faithfully is that Kate McCann could have cried in front of the cameras.    Whatever she was told [and yes she did take their advice and didn't cry]   if she was guilty of a crime and wanted to get the media on her side she could have broken down and cried couldn't she?

If you look at Kate when she is giving the appeal,   she shows a lot of control,  you can see that she is keeping herself in check.

[gilet]

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
 >@@(*&)

The opening post of this thread quoted above is simply incorrect and rather blatantly and in my opinion very oddly, ignores the most crucial sign that the McCanns were not involved.

The crucial point is that there is no evidence against them.

And there is a judicial document which summarises the entire case and concludes that there is no evidence against the McCanns.

Perhaps you missed it.

It concludes:

Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:
 
a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;
 
b) The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

For someone who supposedly takes a genuine interest in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine I find it really odd that you have completely missed this crucial sign that her parents were not involved in that disappearance.

Perhaps you could explain this rather significant oversight on your part.

[Redblossom]

The opening post of this thread quoted above is simply incorrect and rather blatantly and in my opinion very oddly, ignores the most crucial sign that the McCanns were not involved.

The crucial point is that there is no evidence against them.

And there is a judicial document which summarises the entire case and concludes that there is no evidence against the McCanns.

Perhaps you missed it.

It concludes:

For someone who supposedly takes a genuine interest in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine I find it really odd that you have completely missed this crucial sign that her parents were not involved in that disappearance.

Perhaps you could explain this rather significant oversight on your part.

is that what it meant? rather than no evidence of any crime hence case was shelved and arguido status lifted? or did it mean there was no evidence against the arguidos so they had their status lifted but also decided to shelve the case? devils in the detail isnt it and when you have to rely on translations one is never 100% sure is one? happy to be corrected obviously. Any case, thats not what the thread was about.

[gilet]

is that what it meant? rather than no evidence of any crime hence case was shelved and arguido status lifted? or did it mean there was no evidence against the arguidos so they had their status lifted but also decided to shelve the case? devils in the detail isnt it and when you have to rely on translations one is never 100% sure is one? happy to be corrected obviously. Any case, thats not what the thread was about.

Perhaps unlike you I don't have to rely on translations.

And as you say, devil's in the detail.

I am fully aware of what the Prosecutor was stating in that archival report.