Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
What stands out around this - is that putting straight by Ms Lean? Which she does, if it means casting dispersion upon posters who are not in the 'camp' so to speak. If they are then any old nonsense is allowed to do the rounds.

I think you are correct as is Nicholas - How could this girls family not know what happened to Jodi. Impossible.

Of course her poor mother knew as did the rest of Jodi's family. They will know every horrible detail. The police wouldn't shield them from that. They had an absolute right to know and anyone who sat through the trial would have far more information than they probably hoped to have.
2
What kind of jacket zips up to just under someone’s eyes?

I just read that C5 showed the soap opera,  Murder in a Small Town, again last night. Why would it be repeated at all, let alone so quickly?
3
Quote
"I answered a knock at the door one lunch-time, expecting the postman. A man I didn't know stood on my doorstep, his jacket zipped up to under his eyes, a baseball cap pulled down low on his forehead."

What kind of jacket zips up to just under someone’s eyes?
5
Didn’t she say she wanted to show him the DNA results? 🙄

She did from the case files, which as far as is made out, she could not have known if this was Jodi's brother, and is it it legally allowed to share those in their entirety?
6
I suggest you provide a cite.

In case you haven't seen this before..




At the centre of this trial, there is a conflict between two existing rights, the right to good name and reputation of the claimants (through the presumption of innocence that they always were entitled to) and the right to freedom of expression of the defendant, in the concrete field of the right to opinion he is entitled to.

The legal protection of such rights of the claimants is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), of which the article 12° states that no one will suffer, among others, attacks upon one's honour and reputation, stipulating that against such attacks anyone is entitled to the protection of the law.

However, the article 16°  of this great Declaration states, with equal protection, that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

Its mentioned several times.. The balance between right to reputation and the right of free speech. The SC cant support both.. They had to decide on one.. And they found amarals right to free speech outweighed the mccanns right to reputaion... Do you not understand whst the judgement was about.. Balancing rights
7
I don't know why Operation Grange choose to investigate only one possible crime and neither do you. Could they be wrong? In my opinion they could because there is no definitive evidence that an abduction took place imo. Hopefully they didn't base their thesis on the fact that Madeleine wasn't old enough to run away and start a new life. That would be a very flimsy reason on which to base an assumption that she was abducted.
Please don’t be silly, thank you.
8
There is no evidence regarding means, and the motive is questionable. As to opportunity, it was extremely limited by the reported movements of the group. The neglect, by the way, was ignoring guidelines and leaving small children home alone. Others passing the apartment on their way elsewhere were not checking on the McCann children, but would have hampered a potential abductor.
Guidelines are exactly that. Guidelines. Surely, one doesn’t take the expense and effort to vacate in another country just to be restricted by guidelines. “Leaving small children home alone”, according to you, is way too a simplistic explanation. My opinion.
9
I don't know why Operation Grange choose to investigate only one possible crime and neither do you. Could they be wrong? In my opinion they could because there is no definitive evidence that an abduction took place imo. Hopefully they didn't base their thesis on the fact that Madeleine wasn't old enough to run away and start a new life. That would be a very flimsy reason on which to base an assumption that she was abducted.

Bottom line is that the Met failed to progress any criminal proceedings in the Madeleine McCann case despite all their hoohah and bravo.
10

 Two Police forces are investigating abduction,  but  you know better.

I don't know why Operation Grange choose to investigate only one possible crime and neither do you. Could they be wrong? In my opinion they could because there is no definitive evidence that an abduction took place imo. Hopefully they didn't base their thesis on the fact that Madeleine wasn't old enough to run away and start a new life. That would be a very flimsy reason on which to base an assumption that she was abducted.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10