Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?

[Brietta]

When were the McCann's and co interviewed by SY ?

I'm very surprised ... nay amazed ... that no-one seems to have included just that question among the plethora of FOI requests as a result of the news that there was a chance Madeleine's case would be reopened.

Maybe too upset that 'Justice for Madeleine' was about to be enacted for real by real detectives???

[ferryman]

I'm very surprised ... nay amazed ... that no-one seems to have included just that question among the plethora of FOI requests as a result of the news that there was a chance Madeleine's case would be reopened.

Maybe too upset that 'Justice for Madeleine' was about to be enacted for real by real detectives???

A killer repost (to Stephen25000's question)

[Brietta]

It is hardly surprising there are still people who don't believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted.  There was a lot of time and effort put into a private propaganda war against her parents which escalated as the investigators found themselves more and more out of their depth; and desperate for a solution to their problem of failure to solve Madeleine's case by winding it all up and packaging it to implicate her parents.

They didn't allow the fact there was no evidence to support this to stand in their way.

Making the Drs McCann arguidos in their daughter's disappearance was in my opinion a cynical, calculated action performed by an investigation which was totally out of its depth.

One can only imagine how soul destroying this must have been for innocent parents who now knew for certain there was no interest or intention in looking for their missing child and we know how the event was portrayed in the media.


**Snip
E seguiu-se aquilo em que a PJ é especialista, sempre que não consegue deslindar um caso mediático: começar a soprar informações e opiniões para a imprensa, sugerindo que sabe muito bem o que se passou, mas que fortes obstáculos (neste caso, diplomáticos), a impedem ainda de o poder dizer. Os homens de mão da PJ na imprensa - jornalistas, ex-polícias e outros 'especialistas' - começaram então a alimentar a campanha suja contra os McCann: que era muito estranho que ela não chorasse, que o casal tinha hábitos sexuais devassos, que os amigos eram todos de desconfiar, que ela se teria queixado de que Maddie era uma criança difícil, etc. e tal. Preparado o terreno, chegou-se então ao golpe final: a constituição dos McCann como arguidos - o que, para o grosso da opinião pública, nacional e internacional, significou apenas que a Polícia portuguesa os tinha como suspeitos da morte e da ocultação do cadáver da filha.

And followed that in which PJ is an expert , whenever unable to unravel a media event:
start blowing information and opinions to the press , suggesting that knows very well what happened , but significant obstacles (in this case , diplomatic ) , to further hinder the power to speak.

The PJ 's henchmen in the media - journalists , former policemen and other 'experts' - then began to feed the dirty campaign against the McCann:
it was very strange that she would not cry , the couple had sexually immoral sexual practices which the friends were all suspicious , she would have complained that Maddie was a difficult child , etc. and such.

Paved the way , there came then the final blow: the constitution of the McCanns as suspects - which, for the bulk of public , national and international opinion, meant only that the Portuguese police had them as suspects of death and concealment of corpse daughter.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/opiniao/opiniao_miguel_sousa_tavares/maddie-nao-repousa-em-paz=f372432

[stephen25000]

  ...  when I entered to PJ, young, in 1981, with 22 years old, we wanted what today I don´t know if it will be much, to investigate homicides, to investigate drug trafficking, investigate organized crime, and we were with, shall we say, adrenaline, the areas of children, of the missing children or adults, was always mistreated areas, and I remember the father of a missing youngster from Porto, here, Jorge Sepúlveda, which told that in 1991, when he presented, when he told about his son´s disappearance, that there was only one inspector to investigate the disappearances and ten for car theft, the car is much more important than a child, this continues, and that case made me awake for that reality, the reality of the families, those families whose sons disappears, what is the state, the organizations, the police itself, how can help them, what they can expect from police forces, what the police forces can expect of an absence long term, this is nothing, this means nothing, there isn't a planning in terms of investigation, and people are adrift.

Host: This case did not change a thing in Portugal?

GA: Did not, did not, but I hope that it will, because, this is the problem of PJ, and as a superior organ of criminal police, it should have that attention.
The PJ has a legal obligation, because it is at PJ´s organic law, to detect criminal phenomenon, and that doesn´t happen, the PJ continues to react (like any other police) to a real event, then no studies about the phenomenon, and PJ don´t prepare in this situation, the disappearances of children, or an adult disappearance, people who, people don´t even know where to complain, there is an informative note that PJ at 2007 which says something like this: by the way of the missing children´s day, well, don´t forget to give useful advices to parents of missing, half a dozen, but don´t forget that this not crime, and that it is at that informative note, it´s no crime, it´s not investigated as a crime, there is no urgency (for people to understand) but it has to be investigated as a crime, because a child who disappears, everything may happened, a crime, and if not investigated.many things will be lost (12:19).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwAsA3bgY4&feature=player_embedded#


Mr Amaral seems to have been aware that all the stops have to be pulled out when a child goes missing.  The result of any failure in the investigation means ... "many things will be lost".

He appears to be of the opinion that all avenues of investigation have to remain open ... in particular that the disappearance of a child has to be treated as a crime.

To reiterate that 'the nature of the crime is unknown' is semantics ... when you are aware that the current Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations are concentrating on abduction.

Not because they have been told to ... but because they have been following the evidence from scoping exercise to review to reopening of the case.

It is abundantly clear that SY have only been investigating abduction.

As the saying going, a one horse race, and in this case blind folded and going nowhere.


There is no more evidence for abduction than for anything else, and certainly no forensics to indicate that

[stephen25000]

I'm very surprised ... nay amazed ... that no-one seems to have included just that question among the plethora of FOI requests as a result of the news that there was a chance Madeleine's case would be reopened.

Maybe too upset that 'Justice for Madeleine' was about to be enacted for real by real detectives???

'real detectives' ?

Who would they be ?

Even with FOI's, not all information is released.

[stephen25000]

It is hardly surprising there are still people who don't believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted.  There was a lot of time and effort put into a private propaganda war against her parents which escalated as the investigators found themselves more and more out of their depth; and desperate for a solution to their problem of failure to solve Madeleine's case by winding it all up and packaging it to implicate her parents.

They didn't allow the fact there was no evidence to support this to stand in their way.

Making the Drs McCann arguidos in their daughter's disappearance was in my opinion a cynical, calculated action performed by an investigation which was totally out of its depth.

One can only imagine how soul destroying this must have been for innocent parents who now knew for certain there was no interest or intention in looking for their missing child and we know how the event was portrayed in the media.


**Snip
E seguiu-se aquilo em que a PJ é especialista, sempre que não consegue deslindar um caso mediático: começar a soprar informações e opiniões para a imprensa, sugerindo que sabe muito bem o que se passou, mas que fortes obstáculos (neste caso, diplomáticos), a impedem ainda de o poder dizer. Os homens de mão da PJ na imprensa - jornalistas, ex-polícias e outros 'especialistas' - começaram então a alimentar a campanha suja contra os McCann: que era muito estranho que ela não chorasse, que o casal tinha hábitos sexuais devassos, que os amigos eram todos de desconfiar, que ela se teria queixado de que Maddie era uma criança difícil, etc. e tal. Preparado o terreno, chegou-se então ao golpe final: a constituição dos McCann como arguidos - o que, para o grosso da opinião pública, nacional e internacional, significou apenas que a Polícia portuguesa os tinha como suspeitos da morte e da ocultação do cadáver da filha.

And followed that in which PJ is an expert , whenever unable to unravel a media event:
start blowing information and opinions to the press , suggesting that knows very well what happened , but significant obstacles (in this case , diplomatic ) , to further hinder the power to speak.

The PJ 's henchmen in the media - journalists , former policemen and other 'experts' - then began to feed the dirty campaign against the McCann:
it was very strange that she would not cry , the couple had sexually immoral sexual practices which the friends were all suspicious , she would have complained that Maddie was a difficult child , etc. and such.

Paved the way , there came then the final blow: the constitution of the McCanns as suspects - which, for the bulk of public , national and international opinion, meant only that the Portuguese police had them as suspects of death and concealment of corpse daughter.
http://expresso.sapo.pt/opiniao/opiniao_miguel_sousa_tavares/maddie-nao-repousa-em-paz=f372432

However, it doesn't solve what happened to Madeleine, and people can decide for themselves what to believe Brietta.

..........and yet again, investigation of parents in any case such as this is standard.

[Mr Gray]

There is no way of knowing for sure but I would say far more people believe maddie was abducted than not

[stephen25000]

A killer repost (to Stephen25000's question)

Nah ferryman.

FOI's don't solve crimes.

[slartibartfast]

Nah ferryman.

FOI's don't solve crimes.

Also no point in an FOI which would obviously be rejected.

[stephen25000]

The facebook response on the sun's pages will hardly be good reading for the mccanns or their supporters.

and kate mccann believes Madeleine is alive and well in Portugal.

Mmm.

[Benice]

It is abundantly clear that SY have only been investigating abduction.

As the saying going, a one horse race, and in this case blind folded and going nowhere.


There is no more evidence for abduction than for anything else, and certainly no forensics to indicate that

[/b]


Have you forgotten the unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs so quickly?

Obviously for there to be NO evidence of the presence of an abductor-  as you keep claiming  - then the owners of ALL the fingerprints and hairs collected at the scene would need to have been identified and ruled out.   That hasn't happened. 

Therefore as long as those fingerprints and hairs collected  by forensics officers remain unidentified - they also remain as evidence that an intruder (presently unknown)  may have entered 5a on 3rd May and abducted Madeleine.

Unless of course you can show evidence re those fingerprints/hairs to prove that cannot possibly be true? 

[stephen25000]

[/b]


Have you forgotten the unidentified partial fingerprints and hairs so quickly?

Obviously for there to be NO evidence of the presence of an abductor-  as you keep claiming  - then the owners of ALL the fingerprints and hairs collected at the scene would need to have been identified and ruled out.   That hasn't happened. 

Therefore as long as those fingerprints and hairs collected  by forensics officers remain unidentified - they also remain as evidence that an intruder (presently unknown)  may have entered 5a on 3rd May and abducted Madeleine.

Unless of course you can show evidence re those fingerprints/hairs to prove that cannot possibly be true?

I haven't forgotten benice.

So who is examining these materials then, which of course could have been there for years, or laid there by secondary transfer ?

So benice, why do you think people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction ?

[Eleanor]

i dont know if you have read about willams case  but here in australia willam was 3 years old  was being loooked after by his grandparents  and outside playing and he  vanished   alot like ben needem he was with his grandparents  too

There is a Thread for William Tyrrell.  Please take your comments there.  I will be deleting shortly.

[Benice]

I haven't forgotten benice.

So who is examining these materials then, which of course could have been there for years, or laid there by secondary transfer ?

So benice, why do you think people don't believe the mccanns story of abduction ?

This could be true.    However it is also just as true that those partial fingerprints/hairs could have belonged to  an abductor - and until/unless they are identified that possibility cannot be ruled out.    Surely you would agree with that? 

 

[stephen25000]

This could be true.    However it is also just as true that those partial fingerprints/hairs could have belonged to  an abductor - and until/unless they are identified that possibility cannot be ruled out.    Surely you would agree with that?

So benice, what am I supposed to do about that ?

and benice how would the respective police forces check everyone who had been in that apartment ?