Madeleine McCann's mother teams up with posties...

[Brietta]

What I would like to know is why ???   Why are missing children Ben and Daniel treated differently ?

It was only a matter of time;
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5679.msg201938#msg201938

[Mr Gray]

I think Kate's role in this scheme just confirms what absolute b#####ks her critics on here believe

[lordpookles]

I think Kate's role in this scheme just confirms what absolute b#####ks her critics on here believe

How so? What exactly makes Kate's role in this scheme the case that she is now above suspicion ?

[edited]

[John]

Posters are reminded to address the topic under discussion.  Inappropriate comments will be removed as per forum policy. TY

[stephen25000]

I think Kate's role in this scheme just confirms what absolute b#####ks her critics on here believe

km's role is the supreme height of hypocrisy.

She and her husband are responsible for Madeleine's fate, until a court proves otherwise.

[lordpookles]

I don't think a couple of glasses of wine with dinner is neither here nor there. You can in this country have 1 maybe 2 glasses of wine and drive a car.

Honestly I do think people should let it go when it comes to the McCanns childcare arrangements that week. If you look at the listening service that comparable resorts have used in the past it's a similar system to what the McCanns adopted, so the McCanns aren't the only ones doing this. IMO, it wouldn't be what many of us would do, but then we are not all the same. If their child truly has been abducted I would not in any way judge the McCanns harshly. It's a brutal price to pay for poor judgement imo on their part. They are surely now paying a bigger price then any court could impose on them and poor Madeline paid the biggest price of all. That should be enough for any McCann h8ter.

[Brietta]

How so? What exactly makes Kate's role in this scheme the case that she is now above suspicion ?

[edited]

At least one poster on here labours under the delusion that she has been charged with a freudian slip crime.

[slartibartfast]

The McCanns are not being investigated.

Attempts are being made to track down the perpetrators of crime(s) against Madeleine; also to find Madeleine.

The McCanns are victims.

Madeleine is a victim.

Type of crime unknown.

[Alfred R Jones]

So you are equating allowing someone connected with an investigation a) taking up a voluntary role in an organisation campaigning against the subject of that investigation and b) continuing their chosen profession?

What's the difference?  Why are you so concerned by a) but completely (seemingly) unconcerned by b)? What are the risks and potential negative outcomes attached to taking up the role a) Missing People Ambassador that aren't present in the ongoing role of b) healthcare professional or c) parent?

[ferryman]

Type of crime unknown.

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

(Portuguese prosecutors)

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Looks as if the prosecutors are pretty convinced about the crime of abduction.

If only they had the perspicacity and depth of understanding of venerable denizens of this board and elsewhere ...

[stephen25000]

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

(Portuguese prosecutors)

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Looks as if the prosecutors are pretty convinced about the crime of abduction.

If only they had the perspicacity and depth of understanding of venerable denizens of this board and elsewhere ...

and what has been found ?

[Alice Purjorick]

Do we know what precisely are the duties of  "Ambassador" for Missing People? It isn't obvious from the website
Brenda Blethyn, Fiona Phillips and Alastair Stewart are with KM among the nine ambassadors. Among the patrons are John Stapleton and Lorraine Kelly; sort of a GMTV benefit. But joking apart presumably they are just "names" to draw cash for charitable use?

[Mr Gray]

Do we know what precisely are the duties of  "Ambassador" for Missing People? It isn't obvious from the website
Brenda Blethyn, Fiona Phillips and Alastair Stewart are with KM among the nine ambassadors. Among the patrons are John Stapleton and Lorraine Kelly; sort of a GMTV benefit. But joking apart presumably they are just "names" to draw cash for charitable use?

The most important thing is the reinforcement of the acceptance by the public that the mccanns are innocent

[stephen25000]

The most important thing is the reinforcement of the acceptance by the public that the mccanns are innocent

Innocent ?

They have yet to be charged with a crime.

.......and I wonder just how many people when presented with the facts, believe the mccanns story.

Which of course has yet to be proved to be true.

[Mr Gray]

Innocent ?

They have yet to be charged with a crime.

.......and I wonder just how many people when presented with the facts, believe the mccanns story.

Which of course has yet to be proved to be true.

Yes perceived as innocent by the public