One enduring myth.

[G-Unit]

Yes I do have cites.

I post nothing which I cannot substantiate. 

Unlike the investigators of first instance who managed to confuse fiction for reality if their 'leaking sources' are anything at all to go by.

Syringe that 'knocked out' Maddie found 30-08-07


Daily Star
by Jerry Lawton
30 August 2007

Family fury at new claims

POLICE found a syringe in the holiday apartment where Madeleine McCann vanished, it was claimed last night.

Detectives are probing whether it was used to administer sedatives to the four-year-old and her twin siblings Sean and Amelie, according to a Portuguese newspaper.

Last night Madeleine's heart surgeon dad Gerry and GP mum Kate, both 39, were unavailable for comment on the alleged discovery.

But their spokesman Justine McGuinness said: "This is yet another piece of ridiculous speculation without any base in fact.

"Kate and Gerry are responsible and loving parents.

"They have said in the past they have never used sedatives on their children." Police declined to comment on the paper's claims.

Though they have stated the McCanns are not suspects, detectives are baffled that their twins never stirred the night Madeleine vanished from the apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.

They had hoped the two-year-olds, who were asleep in cots either side of their sister's bed, could be key witnesses.

But the pair were carried still sleeping from the apartment by police officers.

The mystery has fuelled speculation in the Portuguese media that Madeleine and the twins were given drugs to help them sleep while their parents went out.

The McCanns were dining in a tapas bar 40 yards away when their daughter vanished on May 3.

Last night a friend of the couple said the barrage of allegations by the Portuguese media had prompted the McCanns to decide to return to Britain within a fortnight. The pal said: "They've had enough." Gerry yesterday begged his daughter's abductor to hand her back.

He said the kidnapper may have taken her in an "act of madness" which they might not understand themselves.

On his daily internet blog he said "like everyone else" he and Kate were awaiting the results of DNA tests on the blood found in their apartment.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic14571.html

August 2007? That isn't 'after the appeal' and it isn't anything to do with CMTV. Your cite needs to demonstrate the truth of what you posted;

The trashing of the McCanns and the friends with whom  they were on holiday continues unabated on Portuguese television channel CMTV.

The old myths have been resurrected as a result of the appeal court judges' interpretation of criminal law in a civil case judgement.  With the worst type of accusation being banded about with unreconstructed viciousness.
March 12, 2017, 11:30:55 PM

PS I love your phrasing, but can you explain how one reconstructs one's viciousness?

[Robittybob1]

Maybe SIL can tell us what is happening re the McCann case in Portugal currently.

[Alfie]

Why did you waste your time on this?

Brietta posts a media report on an alleged syringe and potential sedation and you cannot see a link between sleeping issues and drugged?

Surely not.

Colic occurs in young babies, do you agree?  None of the McCann kids were young babies, agreed?  There is no drug you can give to young babies to cure colic, do you agree?  Now tell me again why you brought up the issue of colic, not only colic but your assertion that the McCanns didn't realise it was colic and didn't realise that it would eventually pass?  What was the purpose of that observation exactly, and how does it relate to the myth of sedation?  In your own time...

[ShiningInLuz]

Maybe SIL can tell us what is happening re the McCann case in Portugal currently.

If you mean McCanns v Amaral, I am not following the case because it is not going to tell me anything about how Madeleine disappeared.

Plus, I very seldom watch Portuguese TV and I never buy Portuguese newspapers.

My only real interest is in the end-impact on the Find Madeleine fund, and for that I will await the outcome of their complaint, and then no doubt an extended process of rear-guard action if the McCanns are required to cough up large sums of money.

[ShiningInLuz]

Colic occurs in young babies, do you agree?  None of the McCann kids were young babies, agreed?  There is no drug you can give to young babies to cure colic, do you agree?  Now tell me again why you brought up the issue of colic, not only colic but your assertion that the McCanns didn't realise it was colic and didn't realise that it would eventually pass?  What was the purpose of that observation exactly, and how does it relate to the myth of sedation?  In your own time...

I have done so already.  Madeleine's sleeping issues and habits, starting from when she was born.  Please don't simply repeat the same question again. My life expectancy is short enough without this game.

[Benice]

If you mean McCanns v Amaral, I am not following the case because it is not going to tell me anything about how Madeleine disappeared.

Plus, I very seldom watch Portuguese TV and I never buy Portuguese newspapers.

My only real interest is in the end-impact on the Find Madeleine fund, and for that I will await the outcome of their complaint, and then no doubt an extended process of rear-guard action if the McCanns are required to cough up large sums of money.

So how did you come to this conclusion?  Just curious.

Quote from yourself

As I have explained before, consensus of opinion here is that the McCanns 'dunnit' whatever 'dunnit' means,
unquote

[Brietta]

August 2007? That isn't 'after the appeal' and it isn't anything to do with CMTV. Your cite needs to demonstrate the truth of what you posted;

The trashing of the McCanns and the friends with whom  they were on holiday continues unabated on Portuguese television channel CMTV.

The old myths have been resurrected as a result of the appeal court judges' interpretation of criminal law in a civil case judgement.  With the worst type of accusation being banded about with unreconstructed viciousness.
March 12, 2017, 11:30:55 PM

PS I love your phrasing, but can you explain how one reconstructs one's viciousness?

Easily ... just take your pick.

unreconstructed
[uhn-ree-kuh n-struhk-tid]

adjective
1. stubbornly maintaining earlier positions, beliefs, etc.; not adjusted to new or current situations:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unreconstructed

Synonyms
for unreconstructed
uncompromising ~ ultraconservative ~ convinced ~ dyed in the wool ~ extremist ~ immovable ~ inflexible ~ intransigent ~ philistine ~ reactionary ~ etcetera, etcetera 


I have made reference to information readily available on fora which owe their existence to pejorative portrayals of the McCanns backed up with transcripts translated from Portuguese to English.

I did not quote directly.  To do so would have ensured deletion from this forum because the comments made by the participants and broadcast on prime time are not only distastefully malignant but are libellous.

Just google "CMTV Debate on the Supreme Court Ruling and the Maddie Case" which is what I did to get there ... enjoy ...

[Brietta]

Maybe SIL can tell us what is happening re the McCann case in Portugal currently.

Good idea ... but not on this thread though.

[ShiningInLuz]

So how did you come to this conclusion?  Just curious.

Quote from yourself

As I have explained before, consensus of opinion here is that the McCanns 'dunnit' whatever 'dunnit' means,
unquote

Take your pick.

Personal experience.  Raising the case here normally results in a rolling of the eyes followed by 'everybody knows the McCanns dunnit'.

Facebook.  I have tracked a number of people I know here who post on Facebook.  I would class their opinions as virulently anti-McCann.

On-line.  Where possible, I prefer to check articles that have been translated from Portuguese into English by reading the Portuguese version, to avoid potential translation bias  Most of the comments in Portuguese are to the effect that the McCanns dunnit.

CMTV. On 3 May 2016, a visitor to Luz bumped into the CMTV team as they were filming a 9th anniversary piece.  The visitor then explained a theory that certainly seemed to have the attention of OG at the time, and which exonerated the McCanns.  The CMTV team listened but explained back that they were not interested as the Portuguese people would only accept reports with a McCann dunnit flavour.

The last personal conversation with a local went along the following lines.  "So you're interested in the Madeleine case?  It's obvious the McCanns did it.  Did you know that Kate went out running the very next morning?" For the avoidance of doubt, this is just one of several scurrilous rumours that pass for 'knowledge' here.

I could go on with further examples.  Let's just saying getting beyond 'the McCanns dunnit' for any reasonable discussion is rarer than hen's teeth.

[Benice]

Take your pick.

Personal experience.  Raising the case here normally results in a rolling of the eyes followed by 'everybody knows the McCanns dunnit'.

Facebook.  I have tracked a number of people I know here who post on Facebook.  I would class their opinions as virulently anti-McCann.

On-line.  Where possible, I prefer to check articles that have been translated from Portuguese into English by reading the Portuguese version, to avoid potential translation bias  Most of the comments in Portuguese are to the effect that the McCanns dunnit.

CMTV. On 3 May 2016, a visitor to Luz bumped into the CMTV team as they were filming a 9th anniversary piece.  The visitor then explained a theory that certainly seemed to have the attention of OG at the time, and which exonerated the McCanns.  The CMTV team listened but explained back that they were not interested as the Portuguese people would only accept reports with a McCann dunnit flavour.

The last personal conversation with a local went along the following lines.  "So you're interested in the Madeleine case?  It's obvious the McCanns did it.  Did you know that Kate went out running the very next morning?" For the avoidance of doubt, this is just one of several scurrilous rumours that pass for 'knowledge' here.

I could go on with further examples.  Let's just saying getting beyond 'the McCanns dunnit' for any reasonable discussion is rarer than hen's teeth.

Thanks for that.

Again just out of interest did you inform that local that what he/she believed about Kate going running the next morning was completely untrue?

[G-Unit]

Easily ... just take your pick.

unreconstructed
[uhn-ree-kuh n-struhk-tid]

adjective
1. stubbornly maintaining earlier positions, beliefs, etc.; not adjusted to new or current situations:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unreconstructed

Synonyms
for unreconstructed
uncompromising ~ ultraconservative ~ convinced ~ dyed in the wool ~ extremist ~ immovable ~ inflexible ~ intransigent ~ philistine ~ reactionary ~ etcetera, etcetera 


I have made reference to information readily available on fora which owe their existence to pejorative portrayals of the McCanns backed up with transcripts translated from Portuguese to English.

I did not quote directly.  To do so would have ensured deletion from this forum because the comments made by the participants and broadcast on prime time are not only distastefully malignant but are libellous.

Just google "CMTV Debate on the Supreme Court Ruling and the Maddie Case" which is what I did to get there ... enjoy ...

It seems weird to comment on something we're not allowed to link to. but if you can I suppose I can reply. What I saw was people who haven't changed their opinion on the case at all. I don't think that makes them unique, it applies to a lot of people. Did you describe them as vicious, because they take a different stance than you do?

Otherwise there was satisfaction with the declaration of the SC judges that archiving does not equate to innocence.

[ShiningInLuz]

Thanks for that.

Again just out of interest did you inform that local that what he/she believed about Kate going running the next morning was completely untrue?

No.  I have found that whether someone is knowledgeable about the case or ignorant of the facts, having the truth explained to them is not going to sway their opinion.

The Luz tours I have done are restricted to those who are knowledgeable.  That way I don't waste my time shovelling dross like 'Kate went running the next morning' or 'the Tapas 9 went to the quiz night at Chaplins' or '3 people were seen going into the church with a bag, and there was a coffin with an English lady who was going to be cremated'.

It's not that I sway any 'expert' from their views.  I simply get a more interesting conversational exchange and pick up pieces of information I was previously unaware of.  And as it happens, I have submitted information to OG after such an exchange, with only the bog standard auto reply as per normal.

[Alfie]

Take your pick.

Personal experience.  Raising the case here normally results in a rolling of the eyes followed by 'everybody knows the McCanns dunnit'.

Facebook.  I have tracked a number of people I know here who post on Facebook.  I would class their opinions as virulently anti-McCann.

On-line.  Where possible, I prefer to check articles that have been translated from Portuguese into English by reading the Portuguese version, to avoid potential translation bias  Most of the comments in Portuguese are to the effect that the McCanns dunnit.

CMTV. On 3 May 2016, a visitor to Luz bumped into the CMTV team as they were filming a 9th anniversary piece.  The visitor then explained a theory that certainly seemed to have the attention of OG at the time, and which exonerated the McCanns.  The CMTV team listened but explained back that they were not interested as the Portuguese people would only accept reports with a McCann dunnit flavour.

The last personal conversation with a local went along the following lines.  "So you're interested in the Madeleine case?  It's obvious the McCanns did it.  Did you know that Kate went out running the very next morning?" For the avoidance of doubt, this is just one of several scurrilous rumours that pass for 'knowledge' here.

I could go on with further examples.  Let's just saying getting beyond 'the McCanns dunnit' for any reasonable discussion is rarer than hen's teeth.

And do most people you communicate with think the McCanns drugged their kids to go and get drunk?  Let's at least try and pretend to post on topic....

[Mr Gray]

Take your pick.

Personal experience.  Raising the case here normally results in a rolling of the eyes followed by 'everybody knows the McCanns dunnit'.

Facebook.  I have tracked a number of people I know here who post on Facebook.  I would class their opinions as virulently anti-McCann.

On-line.  Where possible, I prefer to check articles that have been translated from Portuguese into English by reading the Portuguese version, to avoid potential translation bias  Most of the comments in Portuguese are to the effect that the McCanns dunnit.

CMTV. On 3 May 2016, a visitor to Luz bumped into the CMTV team as they were filming a 9th anniversary piece.  The visitor then explained a theory that certainly seemed to have the attention of OG at the time, and which exonerated the McCanns.  The CMTV team listened but explained back that they were not interested as the Portuguese people would only accept reports with a McCann dunnit flavour.

The last personal conversation with a local went along the following lines.  "So you're interested in the Madeleine case?  It's obvious the McCanns did it.  Did you know that Kate went out running the very next morning?" For the avoidance of doubt, this is just one of several scurrilous rumours that pass for 'knowledge' here.

I could go on with further examples.  Let's just saying getting beyond 'the McCanns dunnit' for any reasonable discussion is rarer than hen's teeth.

So it seems the Portuguese doubt the McCanns because they don't know the true facts

[Brietta]

It seems weird to comment on something we're not allowed to link to. but if you can I suppose I can reply. What I saw was people who haven't changed their opinion on the case at all. I don't think that makes them unique, it applies to a lot of people. Did you describe them as vicious, because they take a different stance than you do?

Otherwise there was satisfaction with the declaration of the SC judges that archiving does not equate to innocence.

In describing a television broadcast which slammed libel upon libel hardly bothering with libellous innuendo ... it was immediately apparent that open season had certainly been declared on the McCanns and their friends ... that is if it had ever been closed.

Read carefully what I actually said about that ...
"With the worst type of accusation being banded about with unreconstructed viciousness." ... which does not match your paraphrased version of what you say I said.
I do wish you were able to present your case without the necessity for invention.

However while reading the transcript yet again to refresh on the libellous accusations being reiterated, the reputations being trashed with "unreconstructed viciousness" and the embellishing of quite a few of the more scurrilous myths, I also read the header on the site.

Which proudly quotes from the Portuguese Constitution as follows ... 1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship.
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

However the Constitution consists of much more than Goncalo Amaral's freedom of expression and thus the freedom apparently enjoyed by television panellists to destroy the good name of whoever may take the fancy of the moment.
It includes ...
Article 16
Scope and sense of fundamental rights
1. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not exclude any others contained in applicable laws and rules of international law.

2. The constitutional and legal precepts relating to fundamental rights must be interpreted and integrated in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx#art37


Perhaps the television panellists et al should consider tempering their enthusiasm until they see how the McCanns might react to the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic which incorporate the guarantee of the implementation of International law.