Emma Loach's documentary

[Benice]

Lump everyone who disbelieves the McCanns together. It makes it so much easier to make it look like a campaign.

As far as I am concerned - there has been a 10 year 'campaign' by some (not all) sceptics who when faced with the inconvenient fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns or their friends, have decided  to devote their time to conducting the most vicious character assassination against them.     The 'logic' behind that appears to be that if they can prove what a wicked, greedy, evil, lying couple they are  - then it must be them wotdunnnit.

Unfortunately for that group of sceptics, during the last 10 years not a shred of evidence has emerged regarding the McCanns private lives to confirm that description of them.    In fact quite the opposite has been the case imo.

The answer to that problem appears to be to 'trash' everything they say and do -  and also to 'trash' any person who dares to say anything which threatens the description of the McCanns which they want people to believe.

The fact that Emma Loach, who was stranger to the McCanns - but who - after eventually meeting and spending time with them was able to form her opinions on a one to one basis, should be recognised by all reasonable people as having credence imo.     

However, the habit of immediately dismissing anyone and anything that is even remotely positive about the McCanns is so entrenched in some quarters that all reasoned logic has also been 'trashed' along the way.
AIMHO.

[stephen25000]

As far as I am concerned - there has been a 10 year 'campaign' by some (not all) sceptics who when faced with the inconvenient fact that there is no evidence against the McCanns or their friends, have decided  to devote their time to conducting the most vicious character assassination against them.     The 'logic' behind that appears to be that if they can prove what a wicked, greedy, evil, lying couple they are  - then it must be them wotdunnnit.

Unfortunately for that group of sceptics, during the last 10 years not a shred of evidence has emerged regarding the McCanns private lives to confirm that description of them.    In fact quite the opposite has been the case imo.

The answer to that problem appears to be to 'trash' everything they say and do -  and also to 'trash' any person who dares to say anything which threatens the description of the McCanns which they want people to believe.

The fact that Emma Loach, who was stranger to the McCanns - but who - after eventually meeting and spending time with them was able to form her opinions on a one to one basis, should be recognised by all reasonable people as having credence imo.     

However, the habit of immediately dismissing anything even remotely positive about the McCanns is so entrenched in some quarters that all reasoned logic has also been 'trashed' along the way.
AIMHO.

Tell me Benice, are you happy that some of your fellow supporters trash people such as Amaral and Grime, still, on a regular basis ?

Loach of course, only saw them after the event.

Has she criticized them for what they did ?

[Robittybob1]

Not necessary for they admit they made a mistake.

[Brietta]

It is very easy to wander off topic and nobody does it more than I do.  However despite only two documentaries on Madeleine McCann's case (as far as I can see) associated with Emma Loach, I think there is plenty of material there for discussion by members.

The mods cannot move comments to appropriate threads; we can only modify or delete.  Therefore some good points can be in danger of getting lost if the discussion moves too far from the thread title and we start making draconian deletions.
On the other hand the thread should reflect as far as is possible the title it goes under.  It is a fine line to tread.

[John]

In order to get it back on track I am refreshing the documentary and a point I just heard was that the files released to the public were all in Portuguese and cost the McCanns around 100,000 pounds to translate them.  The judges often make the point the files were released to the public but they were not that much use to those in the UK till they were translated.

In fact isn't that point plus the intense dedication on Kate's part of going through the files reading them show innocence.  Show me a guilty person spending that sort of money and time!

The First Instance Judge was concerned with what was released to the public in Portugal.  As far as she was concerned the files were disseminated for the benefit of the Portuguese public.  The fact that English, French or German speakers took an interest in the case is neither here nor there.

Now as Brietta points out, can we get back to topic.

[Robittybob1]

The First Instance Judge was concerned with what was released to the public in Portugal.  As far as she was concerned the files were disseminated for the benefit of the Portuguese public.

Did the McCanns criticise the investigation on the Portuguese media?   I have generally seen them really concerned not to break the Judicial Secrecy rules.
Did the Judicial Secrecy rules terminate once the case was archived?  Even later I don't see the McCanns criticising the investigation to any great extent.

[Brietta]

Wouldn't it be a scandal if an abductor was mentioned in the file but hadn't had a visit from the PJ yet.
Where is the example of a guilty person doing such a thing?  I can't think of another example but there are plenty examples of murders of a spouse and the third party moves into the vacancy real quickly.
Both classic lines of investigation.  Maybe that is how an inspector works; thinking up these weird possibilities.

You jest I hope, Robbitty.

No serious investigator would operate like that.  Scenarios may suggest themselves ... but only if there is something which is indicative.  If it is not evidence led a theory is worthless just as it is never set in tablets of stone.  It evolves as more evidence is found.

Watching the detectives work in the documentary, Madeleine Was Here and listening to what they had to say as they learned more about the case confirms that opinion as far as I am concerned.

[Robittybob1]

You jest I hope, Robbitty.

No serious investigator would operate like that.  Scenarios may suggest themselves ... but only if there is something which is indicative.  If it is not evidence led a theory is worthless just as it is never set in tablets of stone.  It evolves as more evidence is found.

Watching the detectives work in the documentary, Madeleine Was Here and listening to what they had to say as they learned more about the case confirms that opinion as far as I am concerned.

I wasn't joking, not this time in the morning, but I found the coffin theory bizarre.
[But the reference now seems to be missing.]

[Robittybob1]

In the Emma Loach (EL) documentary it states the files released to the public were all in Portuguese and cost the McCanns around 100,000 pounds to translate them.  The judges often make the point the files were released to the public but they were not that much use to those in the UK till they were translated.

In fact isn't that point plus the intense dedication on Kate's part of going through the files reading them (also mentioned in the EL documentary) show innocence.  Can anyone show me a guilty person spending that sort of money and time on a case!

[jassi]

In the Emma Loach (EL) documentary it states the files released to the public were all in Portuguese and cost the McCanns around 100,000 pounds to translate them.  The judges often make the point the files were released to the public but they were not that much use to those in the UK till they were translated.

In fact isn't that point plus the intense dedication on Kate's part of going through the files reading them (also mentioned in the EL documentary) show innocence.  Can anyone show me a guilty person spending that sort of money and time on a case!

Firstly it wasn't her money and secondly anyone wanting cover her sorry *rse would do the same to find out what the PJ might have.

[Robittybob1]

Firstly it wasn't her money and secondly anyone wanting cover her sorry *rse would do the same to find out what the PJ might have.

Is that what you would have done Dear Jassi?

They could have taken several good trips abroad with that sort of money "searching for Madeleine".

[Robittybob1]

In the Emma Loach (EL) documentary Kate points out from her study of the files the similarity of the Smithman to the Tannerman. 
Was this followed up by the PJ properly.  Had Smithman been identified?  No so obviously she was pointing out a gap in the investigation.
https://youtu.be/fRQQWmpiO3s?t=284

[jassi]

Is that what you would have done Dear Jassi?

They could have taken several good trips abroad with that sort of money "searching for Madeleine".

Knowing what was in the files was much more pressing. Others could be fooled into doing the searching for them.

[Robittybob1]

Knowing what was in the files was much more pressing. Others could be fooled into doing the searching for them.

No one is searching for Madeleine at that stage.  The Portuguese had archived the case, and Scotland Yard may not have taken up the role as yet.  So they put in their own investigators mentioned in the Documentary.

There is no one fooling anyone.

[jassi]

No one is searching for Madeleine at that stage.  The Portuguese had archived the case, and Scotland Yard may not have taken up the role as yet.  So they put in their own investigators mentioned in the Documentary.

There is no one fooling anyone.

The public were being fooled into searching