Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine

[Robittybob1]

Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;

1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews?
2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern?
3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid?
4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into?
5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't?
6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.

I suggest these questions be transferred to a new thread for there are some really good issues to be discussed there.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, but they would no doubt be considered libelous 

Amaral's case has shown that a theory is not libellous, as long as it is a theory. (Gerry McCann has said he doesn't mind if someone has a theory.)

[stephen25000]

Amaral's case has shown that a theory is not libellous, as long as it is a theory. (Gerry McCann has said he doesn't mind if someone has a theory.)

It isn't up to Gerry McCann if someone has a theory.

[Robittybob1]

It isn't up to Gerry McCann if someone has a theory.

Same applies to everyone else too.  If they are mentioned in a theory it is just a theory and not a claim of fact therefore not considered libel.

[Benice]

Madeleine's rights were satisfied when the first judgement found that Amaral's actions didn't affect the Portuguese investigation; they continued to follow leads. After that Madeleine didn't feature in the case, it was about their reputation.

It was the effect that the claim Amaral made in his book that Madeleine was dead had on his readers which concerned the McCanns.   i.e. the fact that people would believe she was dead because of what he claimed in his book and stop looking for her.     

Unfortunately it was not physically possible to quantify any such damage.    And therefore IIRC it was deemed to be not proved.

[Robittybob1]

It was the effect that the claim Amaral made in his book that Madeleine was dead had on his readers which concerned the McCanns.   i.e. the fact that people would believe she was dead because of what he claimed in his book and stop looking for her.     

Unfortunately it was not physically possible to quantify any such damage.    And therefore IIRC it was deemed to be not proved.

Should they have employed a "marketing" researcher to test the null hypothesis that Amaral's claim made no difference to people's attitude toward contributing to the Find Madeleine fund?

[G-Unit]

It was the effect that the claim Amaral made in his book that Madeleine was dead had on his readers which concerned the McCanns.   i.e. the fact that people would believe she was dead because of what he claimed in his book and stop looking for her.     

Unfortunately it was not physically possible to quantify any such damage.    And therefore IIRC it was deemed to be not proved.

It wouldn't have been difficult to engage a polling company in Portugal. Apparently in March 2008 the McCanns were "‘encouraged’ by poll support". Of course the polls also showed that people in the Algarve were unconvinced of their innocence before Amaral released his book. Another one after the release of Amaral's book might have helped, though, if the figures changed for the worst;

The Correio da Manha poll found that 38.6% of those questioned still believe Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in their daughter’s disappearance in the Algarve. On the other hand, 30.7% thought the couple, from Rothley, in Leicestershire, were completely innocent.

This compares to an earlier poll run by the Portuguese newspaper in which 39.9% of people interviewed thought the couple were guilty and 26.8% believed they were not to blame.


Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2008/03/04/mccanns-encouraged-by-poll-support-23454/#ixzz4gUR9wVZU

[Alfie]

Beginning on the night Madeleine disappeared the McCann's campaigned relentlessly to promote their abduction theory and discredit the PJ. Amaral replied with the investigation's version of events. They were proactive, he was reactive. That's the difference between them.

Some people care only about results, others care how the results are achieved.

That's your point of view, however it's quite easy to see it from a completely different perspective (if one is able to empathise) - the McCanns as victims convinced their daughter had been abducted and the police only interested in stitching them up, Amaral on the attack, his pride having been bruised, accusing them of all sorts of far-fetched and macabre crimes.

[faithlilly]

That's your point of view, however it's quite easy to see it from a completely different perspective (if one is able to empathise) - the McCanns as victims convinced their daughter had been abducted and the police only interested in stitching them up, Amaral on the attack, his pride having been bruised, accusing them of all sorts of far-fetched and macabre crimes.

Bilton was asked to spy on Murat for 'exclusives'. How did that help find Madeleine ?

[Alfie]

No 'the right for Madeleine to be treated as a living child' is how the McCanns justified using the fund to pay their legal bills. It wasn't true then and, as the verdict in Lisbon has decided, it isn't true now.

For the sake of clarity I don't believe Kennedy, or any other rich benefactor, is paying the McCanns legal bills or why would we be hearing from 'sources close to the McCanns' that the legal bills will wipe the fund out?

 I don't believe the McCanns have used a cent of their own money searching, suing or staying at 5 star hotels. Of course if you have proof that I am wrong I will be happy to change my opinion.

Like all your opinions they are based on nothing more than a deep dislike of the McCanns and your own "gut feel" but thanks for sharing, I'm sure it helps you to get it off your chest. 

[faithlilly]

Like all your opinions they are based on nothing more than a deep dislike of the McCanns and your own "gut feel" but thanks for sharing, I'm sure it helps you to get it off your chest. 

So no proof just a need to defend the McCanns at all costs.

I see you didn't answer my question some days ago regarding your need to still defend the McCanns even though they have been declared 'not suspects' by, it would seem, everyone in authority. Why was that?

[Brietta]

Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;

1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews?
2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern?
3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid?
4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into?
5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't?
6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.

You appear to know all about it so why don't you tell us about the time Madeleine ran away and hid?

[Eleanor]

Same old straw man.

Who is whom?

[Eleanor]

Can you think of any reason why they should be arrested and by whom? I can't. I can think of unanswered questions which they might to be able to help with, that's all. For example;

1. Were the bedroom curtains open (4th May statements) or closed as in subsequent interviews?
2. Why was no action taken to make sure the twins were OK, given that they slept so deeply as to cause concern?
3. Tell us, Kate, about the time Madeleine ran away and hid?
4. Why did your relatives think the apartment had been broken into?
5. Why did you let people advertise Madeleine's eye and tell the GMC she had a coloboma when she didn't?
6. You said you had no qualms about leaving the children/leaving the patio door open. Please explain why you discussed it at the table on 3rd May.

Same old same old.

[Eleanor]

Yes, but they would no doubt be considered libelous 

They probably would.