Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Kazcutt on November 07, 2013, 10:48:49 AM
Title: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 07, 2013, 10:48:49 AM
Anything and everything ????
Don't you just find you can be chatting about something regarding madeleines case or issues around madeleines case when you end up thinking about a news article or a Blogg from Kate/Gerry or a totally different case outside this case .
The same names that pop up ie Brian Kennedy or famous Brian Kennedy Apartment hired by mccanns but owned by mccanns Freemasons?? Craig castle ?? It's what keeps us going
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 10:15:05 AM
Was it ever established if there was a 10th tapas member..rumoured to be Gerry's uncle..who left Portugal that night over to spain ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2013, 10:21:18 AM
Was it ever established if there was a 10th tapas member..rumoured to be Gerry's uncle..who left Portugal that night over to spain ?
No. It was something that was mentioned fairly early on and then all went quiet and was never mentioned again. Like so many aspects of this case, the truth of the matter is obscured.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 10:29:50 AM
No. It was something that was mentioned fairly early on and then all went quiet and was never mentioned again. Like so many aspects of this case, the truth of the matter is obscured.
Its the myth's and made up rumour's by the joe blogs on the internet..that make this case confusing..and turn the public against madeleine's parents..its happened since day one..and of course the press haven't helped.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2013, 10:35:11 AM
Its the myth's and made up rumour's by the joe blogs on the internet..that make this case confusing..and turn the public against madeleine's parents..its happened since day one..and of course the press haven't helped.
Having a glib PR machine hasn't help, either.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 12:24:15 PM
So some say, but I feel it has worked against them somewhat, particularly in the use of an ex political spin doctor.
I'm not sure why they needed any PR anyway. Others in similar situations haven't resorted to them.
Are there any similar situations that you know of..that are as big as this investigation is..or that a cop with a criminal record in another childs missing case..or that have wrote a book for his own gain.?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 08, 2013, 12:35:59 PM
So would you of preferred that madeleine's distraught parents to do their own PR..people in certain situations need a spokes person.
From memory - I believe CM was originally brought in to deal with the massive press attention, which being completely alien territory the McCanns would have found difficult to deal with in any circumstances - let alone in the first days following Madeleine's disappearance. IMO
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Lyall on November 08, 2013, 12:38:49 PM
Its the myth's and made up rumour's by the joe blogs on the internet..that make this case confusing..and turn the public against madeleine's parents..its happened since day one..and of course the press haven't helped.
You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2013, 12:40:40 PM
Are there any similar situations that you know of..that are as big as this investigation is..or that a cop with a criminal record in another childs missing case..or that have wrote a book for his own gain.?
None of that was applicable when Mitchell first put in an appearance. It doesn't bother me that they have employed a PR machine - I just think it has not always worked in their favour.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Miro on November 08, 2013, 12:41:11 PM
I think the PR would have come from an aspiring couple (nothing wrong with that) ; taking advice from those "above" them in society and on balance deeming it was the right professional thing to do...........
I don't think it worked in their favour at all and is all part of that conundrum, are they calculating or misguided, are they naive are they incredibly smart.............. all making it very hard to read............
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
From memory - I believe CM was originally brought in to deal with the massive press attention, which being completely alien territory the McCanns would have found difficult to deal with in any circumstances - let alone in the first days following Madeleine's disappearance. IMO
Yes I agree benice..and with a hate campaign going on..the mcCanns needed a PR..some people just don't get it or understand..they just want to throw hurtful things at a poor distraught family.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 08, 2013, 01:23:27 PM
IMO quite few decisions and quotes by Clarence Mitchell did not do either Madeleine or McCanns any favour.
The crowd on internet assumed Clarence Mitchell speech equals McCanns speech but IMO he was often too imprecise or too vague which added the room for many speculations.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: stephen25000 on November 08, 2013, 01:25:51 PM
Now how long was it before the PR machine went into full swing after Madeleine's disappearance ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 01:30:14 PM
A valid question..why would the pj go along with SY..on abduction if they didn't believe the abduction theory.?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2013, 03:03:26 PM
A valid question..why would the pj go along with SY..on abduction if they didn't believe the abduction theory.?
Perhaps they are prepared to indulge SY in the spirit of cooperation. If SY come up with an answer, fine; if not they can always pursue other lines of inquiry if they so wish.
I hope that if evidence emerges that points in a different direction, the police will have the courage to follow that line of investigation.
I foresee a major problem if both forces fail to reach the same conclusion.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 08, 2013, 04:42:39 PM
Perhaps they are prepared to indulge SY in the spirit of cooperation. If SY come up with an answer, fine; if not they can always pursue other lines of inquiry if they so wish.
I hope that if evidence emerges that points in a different direction, the police will have the courage to follow that line of investigation.
I foresee a major problem if both forces fail to reach the same conclusion.
well imo both are following the same lines of the investigation and the abuction is being taken serious ...where does that leave mr amaral's theory ..interesting times ahead >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2013, 04:49:00 PM
well imo both are following the same lines of the investigation and the abuction is being taken serious ...where does that leave mr amaral's theory ..interesting times ahead >@@(*&)
Its a bit difficult to be sure, as there are 2 aspects to the Portuguese side of things. There are the handful of PJ cooperating with SY -are they the ones making inquiry about the dead African? and then there is the other small group, based elsewhere - what are they engaged on?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 08, 2013, 04:58:12 PM
Its a bit difficult to be sure, as there are 2 aspects to the Portuguese side of things. There are the handful of PJ cooperating with SY -are they the ones making inquiry about the dead African? and then there is the other small group, based elsewhere - what are they engaged on?
pray do tell where you get that info from ..otherwise i'll say you making it up ... >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 08, 2013, 05:26:26 PM
pray do tell where you get that info from ..otherwise i'll say you making it up ... >@@(*&)
Sure. Both reported in newspapers over the last few weeks There are half a dozen PJ working in conjunction withf SY doing rogatory type investigation and then there is the small team (4) elsewhere, who carried out their own review and were instrumental in having the case reopened in Portugal. There has been no suggestion that this latter team is actually working with SY
I am not going to provide links and you can please yourself what you believe.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 08, 2013, 05:28:56 PM
Sure. Both reported in newspapers over the last few weeks There are half a dozen PJ working in conjunction withf SY doing rogatory type investigation and then there is the small team (4) elsewhere, who carried out their own review and were instrumental in having the case reopened in Portugal. There has been no suggestion that this latter team is actually working with SY
I am not going to provide links and you can please yourself what you believe.
fine 8)-)))
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 08, 2013, 05:42:30 PM
Does anyone ever read Mathew James (in the light of darkness) He wrote about Madeleine from the start He is very interesting yes he talks of tarot cards but he also talks of being hacked from guys high up
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 08, 2013, 06:15:51 PM
Does anyone ever read Mathew James (in the light of darkness) He wrote about Madeleine from the start He is very interesting yes he talks of tarot cards but he also talks of being hacked from guys high up
Crickey he's a blast from the past..i gave up on him years ago..does he still post about Madeleine.?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 08, 2013, 09:28:38 PM
Does anyone ever read Mathew James (in the light of darkness) He wrote about Madeleine from the start He is very interesting yes he talks of tarot cards but he also talks of being hacked from guys high up
I puzzled over him for yonks. Couldn't understand a thing and anyway being technical I didn't really believe such airy fairy things. I decided he was "just a psychic".
But gad as my findings in the case have unfolded have I ever been amazed at what I now understand about his cards .... and how right he is
He is spot ion in several areas. Maybe spot on in others too. Areas that I haven't unfurled yet.
I say "Well done Matt". Dont know how you do it.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Anna on November 08, 2013, 09:45:28 PM
You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.
Well it was crimewatch for me . I decided to read all the evidence in the pj files and got wondering what our money donated was being spent on and all these libel cases too. Its getting a bit expensive for all the taxpayers who are paying for investigations that other kids didn't get. All seems strange!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 08, 2013, 09:48:42 PM
Well it was crimewatch for me . I decided to read all the evidence in the pj files and got wondering what our money donated was being spent on and all these libel cases too. Its getting a bit expensive for all the taxpayers who are paying for investigations that other kids didn't get. All seems strange!
Compared with the 140 million that this government has just wasted in writing off a benefits computer system, what is being spent by SY is very small beer.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 09, 2013, 08:33:58 AM
I wonder what this 'no news on the case' means, a media blackout?
Is it a good or bad sign?
Two PJ teams and one UK team working on the case is promising.. I wonder what they are into at the moment.
Not sure if it is a good or bad sign as far as progress is concerned, but I think a media blackout is an excellent thing and should be applied to all investigations, except when assistance from the public is required.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 09:01:18 AM
Not sure if it is a good or bad sign as far as progress is concerned, but I think a media blackout is an excellent thing and should be applied to all investigations, except when assistance from the public is required.
It is part of a Democratic society that the press should be able to investigate all aspects of it including Criminal Justice and the Police. Do you agree?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 09, 2013, 09:10:42 AM
It is part of a Democratic society that the press should be able to investigate all aspects of it including Criminal Justice and the Police. Do you agree?
Up to a point, but not to the extent that it would interfere with an active police investigation, or prejudice any subsequent trial.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 09:27:28 AM
Compared with the 140 million that this government has just wasted in writing off a benefits computer system, what is being spent by SY is very small beer.
Are you referring to this, which will pay back the cost very quickly. if not then can you tell me where you got the information. so that I might study The government has unveiled a sweeping strategy to create its own internal "cloud computing" system – such as that used by Google, Microsoft and Amazon – as part of a radical plan that it claims could save up to £3.2bn a year from an annual bill of at least £16bn.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 09, 2013, 09:53:46 AM
Probably right at the beginning of a case, but almost impossible to enforce. If media could be restricted to reporting the facts and not wide speculation, it might help. A major problem is that with 24 hour news channels, there is a clamour for constant updates. In the case of the McCanns, the media was positively encouraged from the start and regularly fed by the PR machinery that was rapidly set up. In many ways, I feel it would have been better if there had been no interviews and no media camped out at PDL, but that isn't what happened.
I do like the concept of police records becoming freely available once a case is closed and wonder if it will ever happen in UK.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 09, 2013, 09:55:28 AM
Are you referring to this, which will pay back the cost very quickly. if not then can you tell me where you got the information. so that I might study The government has unveiled a sweeping strategy to create its own internal "cloud computing" system – such as that used by Google, Microsoft and Amazon – as part of a radical plan that it claims could save up to £3.2bn a year from an annual bill of at least £16bn.
Yes, the question is whether it will make such savings or if these are just wild speculation.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 09:57:20 AM
Probably right at the beginning of a case, but almost impossible to enforce. If media could be restricted to reporting the facts and not wide speculation, it might help. A major problem is that with 24 hour news channels, there is a clamour for constant updates. In the case of the McCanns, the media was positively encouraged from the start and regularly fed by the PR machinery that was rapidly set up. In many ways, I feel it would have been better if there had been no interviews and no media camped out at PDL, but that isn't what happened.
I do like the concept of police records becoming freely available once a case is closed and wonder if it will ever happen in UK.
When does a case begin?
In the USA with no prior restraint the Press can print anything that is not libellous.
If the press can print nothing about a case until it is concluded, the entire Justice system and police would be free of public investigation.
Should this blackout involve forums and blogs on the internet?
DO you want press freedom or the press to be shckled? How do you differentiate wild speculation from the facts- should only facts be placed on sites like this with no wild speculation?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Anna on November 09, 2013, 10:29:35 AM
Yes, the question is whether it will make such savings or if these are just wild speculation.
Wild speculation ? I am sure it has all been calculated by people who know what they are talking about and what has this to do with the original post of Maddie case?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 09, 2013, 10:30:32 AM
Nothing - it was comment in response to cost. End
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Anna on November 09, 2013, 11:00:52 AM
You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.
Exactly! Because there was no media and the WD programme didn't help, So people like myself decided to check out the PJ files and came to their conclusions . I am still open minded, but I am being swayed as the truth comes out, such as the PIs evidence being held back for 5 years. Why?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 11:21:00 AM
Exactly! Because there was no media and the WD programme didn't help, So people like myself decided to check out the PJ files and came to their conclusions . I am still open minded, but I am being swayed as the truth comes out, such as the PIs evidence being held back for 5 years. Why?
The newspapers are aware that Carter Ruck will jump on any attempt to defame the McCanns. This is what the law is for. Defamation is a tort with a set procedure for assessing whether the law has been broken. The Newspapers know that if they print defamatory articles, they risk being successfully sued for libel. Hence they are keeping on the right side of the law and avoiding defamation. If they find any evidence of the Mccann's criminality (the Portuguese AG could not) then they can print the story and defend it by justification. There is no body of evidence to allow them to do this, so they do not.
Do you think newspapers should have a licence to defame any person they wish to?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Anna on November 09, 2013, 12:20:41 PM
The newspapers are aware that Carter Ruck will jump on any attempt to defame the McCanns. This is what the law is for. Defamation is a tort with a set procedure for assessing whether the law has been broken. The Newspapers know that if they print defamatory articles, they risk being successfully sued for libel. Hence they are keeping on the right side of the law and avoiding defamation. If they find any evidence of the Mccann's criminality (the Portuguese AG could not) then they can print the story and defend it by justification. There is no body of evidence to allow them to do this, so they do not.
Do you think newspapers should have a licence to defame any person they wish to?
Of course not. I believe that because there was no news, people checked the PJ files and made their own conclusions and not that the news had a right to defamation This was an answer to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 12:24:53 PM
Of course not. I believe that because there was no news, people checked the PJ files and made their own conclusions and not that the news had a right to defamation This was an answer to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.
you don't think its because express newspaers were sued for libel 5 yrs ago
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Anna on November 09, 2013, 12:37:20 PM
you don't think its because express newspaers were sued for libel 5 yrs ago
All I am saying is......People who depended on the newspapers wanted more information than the media could legally supply, so started dong their own checking ie PJ files or any other source that might lead them to the truth and this I believe is the time that the Myths increased......(Reading between the lines) I admit that these files are very convincing
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 09, 2013, 12:45:28 PM
I puzzled over him for yonks. Couldn't understand a thing and anyway being technical I didn't really believe such airy fairy things. I decided he was "just a psychic".
But gad as my findings in the case have unfolded have I ever been amazed at what I now understand about his cards .... and how right he is
He is spot ion in several areas. Maybe spot on in others too. Areas that I haven't unfurled yet.
I say "Well done Matt". Dont know how you do it.
He thinks it was Madeleine in Morocco and Belgium I think madeleines face was put on that piggy back pic . Her cows lick was same as madeleines same side Bushras was other side
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 12:51:29 PM
Of course not. I believe that because there was no news, people checked the PJ files and made their own conclusions and not that the news had a right to defamation This was an answer to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.
This is certainly an interesting phenomenon. What could explain that no UK newspaper questions the fact that the abduction is amazingly presented as going without saying ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 01:02:48 PM
Of course not. I believe that because there was no news, people checked the PJ files and made their own conclusions and not that the news had a right to defamation This was an answer to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, You have to consider why the problem still remains when not a single myth or rumour about Madeleine's parents has been printed by a UK newspaper in over five years.
It is not a problem. It is a matter of avoiding actions for defamation.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 01:04:42 PM
This is certainly an interesting phenomenon. What could explain that no UK newspaper questions the fact that the abduction is amazingly presented as going without saying ?
If a British Newspaper raised a case for parental involvement, they would be expressing of defamation and be liable for libel damages. this is becasue there is no supportable case for such a suggestion. If there was a case then the papers could rely on justification as a defence- they cannot as there is none.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 01:05:19 PM
This is certainly an interesting phenomenon. What could explain that no UK newspaper questions the fact that the abduction is amazingly presented as going without saying ?
Myths and rumours are also defamation.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 01:30:27 PM
It is not a question of increasing the chances of finding her- that is the police job. It is a matter of their right to reputation and liberty.
How do you defend breaking British Law in pursuit of ones obsession. Is that noble?
In pursuit of peoples right to freedom of opinion & freedom of speech, I don't have a problem with it. They might, I don't because..........
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 02:00:35 PM
In pursuit of peoples right to freedom of opinion & freedom of speech, I don't have a problem with it. They might, I don't because..........
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
Again, that is Portuguese Law. Do you live in Portugal?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 02:08:07 PM
I haven't mentioned the law at any stage but seeing as you've introduced the subject it is actually unlawful under British law - The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.
I haven't mentioned the law at any stage but seeing as you've introduced the subject it is actually unlawful under British - The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.
The law in England is not based on the concept of Abandonment, but being placed at risk- two separate concepts. There is no law on abandonment in England, only exposing a child to risk. In Portugal it is illegal to abandon a child even if there is no risk.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Anna on November 09, 2013, 02:45:40 PM
This has come up time and time again..what is the definition of "at risk" . it is an extremely grey area
libel case Day 6 witness 3 “The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.”
So when was abandonment unproven ? because I cannot see it anywhere. Please direct me. By the way I have not read his book or Kates because I prefer a clear head
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 02:47:38 PM
libel case Day 6 witness 3 “The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.”
So when was abandonment unproven ? because I cannot see it anywhere. Please direct me. By the way I have not read his book or Kates because I prefer a clear head
Could you tell us where this quote comes from as it seems to be wrong. The archiving report ruled out negligence
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Mr Gray on November 09, 2013, 02:51:05 PM
libel case Day 6 witness 3 “The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.”
So when was abandonment unproven ? because I cannot see it anywhere. Please direct me. By the way I have not read his book or Kates because I prefer a clear head
From the wording it is a quote by amaral...he sates..."for all of us" etc...he is sating opinion not fact
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 02:53:09 PM
Under English law abandonment is encapsulated within the term Neglect !
Abandonment is the mere leaving of a child with no intention to return to it.
Neglect means leaving a child, even with the intention of returning, but placing it in a situation of severe risk.
Abandonment alone would be sufficient to start Care Proceedings, but would not be a criminal offence in the UK.
There are two separate concepts here- one of the withdrawal permanently from guardianship of the child, and one of placing a child at risk. They are dealt with differently in different administrations.
ALthough abandonment is a criminal offence in Portugal, in many US states they have safe harbor laws where children and infants may be legally abandoned with no legal consequences.
I Portugal Neglect is an administrative matter, in the UK it is a criminal one. There is no criminal law against neglect in Portugal.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 03:01:32 PM
You were the one who brought the information to the thread ergo it is your responsibility under forum rules to supply a citation for same.
I provided some examples that people can believe or not. I may search them out but they all show as non-criminal neglect.
A review of the current state of the law and proposals to change it can be found here, and this demonstrates why so few criminal cases result currently:
it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police
Where is the evidence for the part underlined?
McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Ricardo Paiva.
SO – What about the possibility that the child had died?
RP says that after a certain time it is normal to start thinking of death. He says that the investigation took various avenues, one of them being the death of the child. He says their British colleagues even contemplated the possible concealment of a cadaver.
That case wasn't mentioned in the post I quoted you on and asked for citations for the seven cases you quoted. One down, six to go !
All were fully discussed and documented on the 3 Arguidos in 2009. It is quite difficult to find press reports for abandoned cases. My contention is that it is very rare for neglect charges to be successful in the UK without severe harm coming to the child. Perhaps if you believe that such cases are common, you should produce the big news stories that detail criminal sanctions on carers for less than death or serious physical harm.
Having worked in Child protection (over a decade ago) I know how rare neglect cases are and that many fold before reaching court, even after charging.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 03:27:57 PM
We'll agree to disagree davel, Aiofe is a big boy / girl who is well aware of forum rules. So far only one citation has been proffered to support the 'facts' !
Well it seems you only expect Aiofe to abide by forum rules but not others..it doesn't really matter. Aiofe has given us an insight into the real facts on the law relating to neglect via a link to the govt document..many posters talk about neglect...do you know what the legal definition is
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 03:34:20 PM
I'm stopping now. All were agreed on the very anti three arguidos site to be real cases.
Perhaps those that suggest that anything like the Mccanns has ever resulted in a successful court case for neglect in the UK should produce these cases.
Do people think the McCanns would have been found guilty of neglect in the UK if the disappearance had happened here?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 03:47:05 PM
Leaving a child outside a pub in a child seat in the evening, asleep, while the parents drank in the pub.
Leaving a child alone asleep in the house while the single parent walked down the street to the local convenience store.
Leaving 8, 9 and 10 year olds alone at home.
Leaving babies asleep in cots while parents were in the neighbour's house, or calling from a telephone kiosk at the end of the street.
Leaving children asleep in car seats while shopping is done.
Allowing 3, 4 and 5 year olds to play outside in safe situations with no parental supervision.
Going to Spain and leaving a ten year old alone, visited daily by his grandmother.
Let's highlight them in red as we provide citations as requested - one down six to go.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 03:59:33 PM
Leaving a child outside a pub in a child seat in the evening, asleep, while the parents drank in the pub.
Leaving a child alone asleep in the house while the single parent walked down the street to the local convenience store.
Leaving 8, 9 and 10 year olds alone at home.
Leaving babies asleep in cots while parents were in the neighbour's house, or calling from a telephone kiosk at the end of the street.
Leaving children asleep in car seats while shopping is done.
Allowing 3, 4 and 5 year olds to play outside in safe situations with no parental supervision.
Going to Spain and leaving a ten year old alone, visited daily by his grandmother.
Let's highlight them in red as we provide citations as requested - one down six to go.
Only two left here without cites.
Has anyone ever heard of someone being charged with neglect when within walking distance of their own front door. I haven't.
I think that will do.
Over to those who insist that the McCanns would have been prosecuted in the UK. If you say it, back it up with a cite!
I would point out that I am currently waiting for cites from Stephen 25000, Anne Guedes (for weeks) and Luz. I don't moan too much about them not complying with the rules!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 09, 2013, 04:08:52 PM
The April Jones Case in Wales- the dreadful murser. £,4 and 5 year old children commonly played outside on the rec without parental observation.
That's three.
She was on the estate, not a recreation ground. She was outside her own home. She wasn't alone. Machynlleth is a tiny Welsh community. My Mother's family come from the same kind of place. Kids play out in the street and doors are never locked in the day. That's how it is.
Here's a cite for a parent who received a caution for leaving her 14 year old looking after her 3 year old for half an hour.
"Going to Spain and leaving a ten year old alone, visited daily by HIS grandmother."
This case involved an 11 year old GIRL left in the custody of an elderly neighbor who became ill ! So you're going to claim this story to back up this statement I guess ! Easy to see where 'myths' can develop, sloppily researched quotes thrown onto a forum declared as 'facts' ! Shame on you Aiofe, I shan't ask you to provide citations for the other unproven 'facts', as you've made yourself out to be the biggest clown on this forum.
If you check the red highlighting, I was referencing another case.
You are an obsessional old woman.
Please list any conviction in the UK for anything like the Mccanns did.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 04:40:22 PM
She was on the estate, not a recreation ground. She was outside her own home. She wasn't alone. Machynlleth is a tiny Welsh community. My Mother's family come from the same kind of place. Kids play out in the street and doors are never locked in the day. That's how it is.
Here's a cite for a parent who received a caution for leaving her 14 year old looking after her 3 year old for half an hour.
But there are exceptions. Last week a Carlisle mother was jailed for 56 days for leaving her two children, both under school age, at home alone when she went to buy cigarettes.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 04:43:43 PM
But there are exceptions. Last week a Carlisle mother was jailed for 56 days for leaving her two children, both under school age, at home alone when she went to buy cigarettes.
Possibly a little more complex than going to the shops:
"Police were called to the house for an unrelated incident and found them asleep with no blankets on one bed and no pillows on the other. The house was dirty, strewn with clothes, waste bags and empty alcohol bottles.
The woman’s lawyer told the court she had never been in trouble before and had mental health issues.
The woman, who admitted child cruelty, also pleaded guilty to criminal damage on December 13 when she visited her boyfriend, cut her wrist and smeared ‘I love you’ on the wall in blood. She also admitted resisting a police officer on the same day."
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 04:48:51 PM
Not entirely dissimilar. Left home alone while she went out partying.
N
Link does not work. I suspect we shall find a big difference when we see the whole story as with the above example- not cigarette shopping but the whole package of child care.
Perhaps you can quote the first sentence and I can google for it,
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 04:51:44 PM
Link does not work. I suspect we shall find a big difference when we see the whole story as with the above example- not cigarette shopping but the whole package of child care.
Perhaps you can quote the first sentence and I can google for it,
Not entirely dissimilar. Left home alone while she went out partying.
And let us not forget it wasn't just Madeleine that was left. How old were the twins again?
N
As I suspected
Left alone consecutive days for over 24 hours Baby in unheated house in winter Baby denied food and water for 24 hours at a time No nappy change- severe nappy rash with bleeding
and you have the brass cheek to say this is like the McCanns!
A young mother has been jailed for leaving her baby home alone every day for a week while she went out partying.
The 20-year-old left her 15-month-old daughter in her cot while she was out drinking with friends.
A court heard heard how she would "pop back" every day to feed the baby breakfast cereal and a microwave meal.
But she would then return to a friend's flat to continue partying over last Christmas and New Year.
The alarm was raised when neighbours called police after hearing the little girl's screams coming from the house in Brecon, Powys.
The court heard two officers arrived to find the house in darkness, very cold inside and with all the rooms in a mess.
Prosecutor Michael Hammett said: "The house was in a state of disarray with rubbish, dirty clothes, empty wine bottles, beer cans and dirty nappies strewn over the floors.
"One of the officers went into the bedroom and found the little girl subdued in her crib.
"There was no heating on in the house and she was partly covered by a blanket."
The court heard the tot was taken to the nearby police station where officers went out to a local corner shop to buy nappies, clean clothes and baby wipes for the little girl.
Mr Hammett said: "When they gave her food and drink she grabbed them as if she had been starved."
The mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told police she had been back to the house on four occasions to feed her baby but then left her home alone again.
When police entered the mother's home, the girl had been on her own for more than 24 hours.
She was examined by a doctor and found to have severe nappy rash which was bleeding.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 04:54:30 PM
Possibly a little more complex than going to the shops:
"Police were called to the house for an unrelated incident and found them asleep with no blankets on one bed and no pillows on the other. The house was dirty, strewn with clothes, waste bags and empty alcohol bottles.
The woman’s lawyer told the court she had never been in trouble before and had mental health issues.
The woman, who admitted child cruelty, also pleaded guilty to criminal damage on December 13 when she visited her boyfriend, cut her wrist and smeared ‘I love you’ on the wall in blood. She also admitted resisting a police officer on the same day."
She wasn't jailed for her poor house keeping abilities. She was jailed for leaving her children alone.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:02:28 PM
Well Coco, Cariad & BFB have given you examples, there is another in Ilfracombe that I'm aware of.
Not one of them anything like the Mccanns.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: CPN on November 09, 2013, 05:04:34 PM
Most of these cases being discussed involve 10/11/+ old children, so the situations are very different.
The NSPCC guidelines quoted on Cariad's link are far more relevant in this case, considering the ages of the McCann children- - “We say that you should never leave a baby or toddler alone at all, even for a short time, regardless of whether they are asleep or awake."
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:09:28 PM
She wasn't jailed for her poor house keeping abilities. She was jailed for leaving her children alone.
No. Neglect is much wider than just leaving children alone. It involves failing to meet their needs in many ways- go read the 1933 Act which covers it. Warmth, Food, Liquids, clothes, acceptable environment.
Every successful case of neglect that I have seen go through the courts successfully involves more than mere absence. I used to have a really neat spread sheet but that is now buried on some stand alone hard disc and I can't be bothered to find it.
We are looking for a court conviction of a parent who merely left children alone, their other physical needs being met for warmth, food, drink, secure environment etc. No other accompanying crimes such as drug abuse or violence, and no cases of previous criminal offences, particularly not a series of neglect and cruelty cases leading up to a final removal.
The Mccanns had
No previous criminal convictions No Childcare concerns No illegal acts at the same time Met the physical needs of the children Checked them regularly.
Find me a case like that that has resulted in a conviction in the UK.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:12:17 PM
Most of these cases being discussed involve 10/11/+ old children, so the situations are very different.
The NSPCC guidelines quoted on Cariad's link are far more relevant in this case, considering the ages of the McCann children- - “We say that you should never leave a baby or toddler alone at all, even for a short time, regardless of whether they are asleep or awake."
Examples then of convictions for simply leaving toddlers alone with no other neglect or abuse issues.
I have references to two babies drowned in a bath, one involving alcohol and one involving drugs.
But nothing like the McCanns.
It is difficult to get a conviction on this is UK courts. About 2000 occur each year out of hundreds of thousands of referrals for neglect and abuse. Most are dealt with administratively.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 05:16:05 PM
Hi! Mum and Dad would scrimp all year to take us on a little holiday to Butlines and what a time we all had! Mum and Dad used the listening service while they had a drink at the club and they would be heart broken if some body were to say that they abandoned us kids.
I am on the fence in this case of Madeleine but if people are saying that they abandoned their kids then they are also saying that my Mum and Dad abandoned us and I find that a bit offensive. This family did just the same as my Mum and Dad did.
That's funny. We used to scrimp and save but could only afford for me and my dad to go to Butlins. We would go out and, when it got a little late my dad would come back to the chalet with me. He just wouldn't see it as a holiday if he wasn't having fun with his child.
Just goes to show how different people are eh? Some would do anything for their kids and want to be with them and some look for any excuse to slope off and have a pint.
N
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:16:47 PM
Examples then of convictions for simply leaving toddlers alone with no other neglect or abuse issues.
I have references to two babies drowned in a bath, one involving alcohol and one involving drugs.
But nothing like the McCanns.
It is difficult to get a conviction on this is UK courts. About 2000 occur each year out of hundreds of thousands of referrals for neglect and abuse. Most are dealt with administratively.
Come on, surely someone can find an example which will please Alfie?
No, oh maybe that's because you are on a hiding to nowt because nothing will ever satisfy them.
It may not be a case of criminal neglect with the McCanns but it is certainly neglectful behaviour to leave 3 kids alone while you go out. Just because you can't be sent to prison for it does not make it right. 3 kids and two of them infants, may not be illegal but it is disgraceful.
N
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: CPN on November 09, 2013, 05:22:45 PM
Examples then of convictions for simply leaving toddlers alone with no other neglect or abuse issues. I have references to two babies drowned in a bath, one involving alcohol and one involving drugs. But nothing like the McCanns. It is difficult to get a conviction on this is UK courts. About 2000 occur each year out of hundreds of thousands of referrals for neglect and abuse. Most are dealt with administratively.
Well, I have hesitated to write this as I cannot prove it. But when I started as a Child Care Officer in the late 1960s I had three sisters in care who has been removed in circumstances very similar to the ones we are discussing.
Anyway, we were talking about whether leaving them in the way they were left was neglect or not, not whether or not there had been a prosecution. In fact as I have said before, and as you appear to have confirmed unless I have totally misunderstood your post, not all cases of child abuse of any kind result in prosecution - most are dealt with in other ways. But that does not mean that the abuse / neglect / whatever did not occur
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 05:26:38 PM
Well, I have hesitated to write this as I cannot prove it. But when I started as a Child Care Officer in the late 1960s I had three sisters in care who has been removed in circumstances very similar to the ones we are discussing.
Anyway, we were talking about whether leaving them in the way they were left was neglect or not, not whether or not there had been a prosecution. In fact as I have said before, and as you appear to have confirmed unless I have totally misunderstood your post, not all cases of child abuse of any kind result in prosecution - most are dealt with in other ways. But that does not mean that the abuse / neglect / whatever did not occur
As soon as the word 'neglect' appears the pro's always steer the thread toward a discussion surrounding the legality of what the McCann parents did. They do this because it is an argument they can win.
Whereas if we were just discussing was it neglectful then very few would be able to argue in favour of the Mccanns' actions other than the favoured "well they had a listening service in Butlins" - and how that is a valid argument for anything is beyond me.
N
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:27:35 PM
Come on, surely someone can find an example which will please Alfie?
No, oh maybe that's because you are on a hiding to nowt because nothing will ever satisfy them.
It may not be a case of criminal neglect with the McCanns but it is certainly neglectful behaviour to leave 3 kids alone while you go out. Just because you can't be sent to prison for it does not make it right. 3 kids and two of them infants, may not be illegal but it is disgraceful.
N
Excellent. We agree. The McCanns were not guilty of criminal neglect in Portugal and would not have been found guilty here either going on the court records and recommendations in the Child Protection Handbook Sweet and Maxwell). They are totally innocent of criminal neglect.
Now we come to personal belief.
You believe they were non-criminally neglectful and disgraceful.
I believe they were ill advised, too complacent and unthinking
Others believe it was a reasonable risk given similar child watching schemes.
Let me tell you, none of those beliefs are right or wrong. They are just beliefs. Different people have different beliefs.
But it is a fact that there was no criminal neglect involved.
Glad to have settled the matter.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:29:36 PM
"My contention is that it is very rare for neglect charges to be successful in the UK without severe harm coming to the child."
I think they did Coco.
We do not know that but we do know that leaving Madeleine alone was not the Prime Cause of her disappearance as discussed elsewhere. The cases of neglect resulting in severe harm or death are ones where the harm was the direct result of the neglect.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:30:37 PM
As soon as the word 'neglect' appears the pro's always steer the thread toward a discussion surrounding the legality of what the McCann parents did. They do this because it is an argument they can win.
Whereas if we were just discussing was it neglectful then very few would be able to argue in favour of the Mccanns' actions other than the favoured "well they had a listening service in Butlins" - and how that is a valid argument for anything is beyond me.
N
I agree that they were neglectful- a personal belief. The problem is that people try to make that mean criminally liable when it is only a matter of individual belief.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: CPN on November 09, 2013, 05:32:23 PM
Excellent. We agree. The McCanns were not guilty of criminal neglect in Portugal and would not have been found guilty here either going on the court records and recommendations in the Child Protection Handbook Sweet and Maxwell). They are totally innocent of criminal neglect.
Now we come to personal belief.
You believe they were non-criminally neglectful and disgraceful.
I believe they were ill advised, too complacent and unthinking
Others believe it was a reasonable risk given similar child watching schemes.
Let me tell you, none of those beliefs are right or wrong. They are just beliefs. Different people have different beliefs.
But it is a fact that there was no criminal neglect involved.
Glad to have settled the matter.
You may have settled it to your satisfaction but not to the satisfaction of others. And one thing I do know, that the LAs I worked for would certainly have followed up any referral that a family were doing this to their children of that age. They would not necessarily have prosecuted, as we have agreed , but they would have taken action, not ignored it, of that I am certain.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: BigFatBlonde on November 09, 2013, 05:34:07 PM
We do not know that but we do know that leaving Madeleine alone was not the Prime Cause of her disappearance as discussed elsewhere. The cases of neglect resulting in severe harm or death are ones where the harm was the direct result of the neglect.
And since you dont know what happened to her, you cant state that as a fact...if in the uk two parents left their toddlers alone and went out and left the house unsecured too, albeit for half hour periods, sometimes more, and one or more had a serious or fatal accident, you really think they would not be charged? No need to answer.....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: CPN on November 09, 2013, 05:36:22 PM
And since you dont know what happened to her, you cant state that as a fact...if in the uk two parents left their toddlers alone and went out and left the house unsecured too, albeit for half hour periods, sometimes more, and one or more had a serious or fatal accident, you really think they would not be charged? No need to answer.....
They might / might not actually be charged, Redblossom - but action would certainly be taken
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:42:27 PM
You may have settled it to your satisfaction but not to the satisfaction of others. And one thing I do know, that the LAs I worked for would certainly have followed up any referral that a family were doing this to their children of that age. They would not necessarily have prosecuted, as we have agreed , but they would have taken action, not ignored it, of that I am certain.
That is what I have been saying- administrative action, but that is not legal action or certainly criminal action. The Mccanns were visited by social services on their return. They did not have children placed into care. The may have been placed on the at risk register, but in my experience, parents who are aware of the errors made and do not intend to repeat them are spoken with and then put on the back burner even if deemed at risk. We know that they made the application for Madeleine to be made a ward of court and they were able to take the twins to Canada, suggesting minimal intervention.
But the bottom line was that they were not adjudged to be neglectful.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 09, 2013, 05:42:56 PM
Hi! Mum and Dad would scrimp all year to take us on a little holiday to Butlines and what a time we all had! Mum and Dad used the listening service while they had a drink at the club and they would be heart broken if some body were to say that they abandoned us kids.
I am on the fence in this case of Madeleine but if people are saying that they abandoned their kids then they are also saying that my Mum and Dad abandoned us and I find that a bit offensive. This family did just the same as my Mum and Dad did.
Thousands if not millions of parents must have done the same over the years Tooty. It's been a recognised 'service' for decades for people on holiday.
But apparently it's only if you mirror that service yourselves and are targetted by abductors that it becomes 'a heinous crime' committed by the parents. If I live to be a 100 I will never understand the logic in that.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:44:31 PM
They might / might not actually be charged, Redblossom - but action would certainly be taken
But not likely to be criminal action and unlikely to reach a Family Court judge.
remember that social work decisions are not affirmed until they have legal backing. Placing a child on the at risk register has no meaning in the assessment of culpability- it is a tool, not a legal decision.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 09, 2013, 05:45:47 PM
They might / might not actually be charged, Redblossom - but action would certainly be taken
Thanks CPN, I realise various things are taken into consideration, but this is something I dont understand, if a child can break a leg with its parent in the house, they are convicted of neglect, but if one does so or worse while they were out they wouldnt?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:52:17 PM
Thanks CPN, I realise various things are taken into consideration, but this is something I dont understand, if a child can break a leg with its parent in the house, they are convicted of neglect, but if one does so or worse while they were out they wouldnt?
Do you have a cite for an accidental leg break being prosecuted successfully as neglect in England?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: CPN on November 09, 2013, 05:52:39 PM
That is what I have been saying- administrative action, but that is not legal action or certainly criminal action. The Mccanns were visited by social services on their return. They did not have children placed into care. The may have been placed on the at risk register, but in my experience, parents who are aware of the errors made and do not intend to repeat them are spoken with and then put on the back burner even if deemed at risk. We know that they made the application for Madeleine to be made a ward of court and they were able to take the twins to Canada, suggesting minimal intervention.
But the bottom line was that they were not adjudged to be neglectful.
Then we have been saying much the same thing. But the fact that there was no court case does not mean that it was not neglect. There are, as I have said many times, other ways of dealing with things, and we do not know whether or not any action was taken in the McCann case as Social Services actions are not for public display.
Totally different, but when I was working in a Children's Hospital I was aware of a case where a father had caused damage to his child. His actions after the incident in immediately bringing his child to A&E for attention, admitting what he had done, asking for help etc - led to him being offered parenting classes rather than prosecution, which he was very happy to accept - and there were, (fingers crossed still!) no more problems. That does not mean that the original damage to the child was not there, the child's arm remained broken; it means that it was decided after all aspects were taken into consideration that prosecution was not necessary and the situation could be dealt with in another way
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 05:53:58 PM
Then we have been saying much the same thing. But the fact that there was no court case does not mean that it was not neglect. There are, as I have said many times, other ways of dealing with things, and we do not know whether or not any action was taken in the McCann case as Social Services actions are not for public display.
Totally different, but when I was working in a Children's Hospital I was aware of a case where a father had caused damage to his child. His actions after the incident in immediately bringing his child to A&E for attention, admitting what he had done, asking for help etc - led to him being offered parenting classes which he was very happy to accept - and there were, (fingers crossed still!) no more problems. That does not mean that the original damage to the child was not there, the child's arm remained broken; it means that it was decided after all aspects were taken into consideration that prosecution was not necessary and the situation could be dealt with in another way
Oh FFS.
Neglect can mean two things- a criminal act and a non-criminal act.
When I say they are NOT GUILTY of neglect, that means that they have not been adjudicated criminally responsible for the act.
I people's eyes they may have non-criminally neglected a child, but that is not criminal neglect.
Can you see the distinction?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: CPN on November 09, 2013, 05:58:38 PM
Thanks CPN, I realise various things are taken into consideration, but this is something I dont understand, if a child can break a leg with its parent in the house, they are convicted of neglect, but if one does so or worse while they were out they wouldnt?
Well, it could depend on how the leg was broken Redblossom. The parents would not necessarily be convicted for neglect. Funnily enough I have given an example of a broken arm and the subsequent events as you and I were posting! But, of course, if the parents are there, they can take immediate action; if they are not there....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 06:03:22 PM
I was a trainer. The law has not changed in this respect.
No criminal neglect is confirmed until there is a trial.
No Adminstrative neglect is confirmed until there is a family court ruling.
Decisions made by social workers or other CP team members are merely administrative positions with no meaning in law until confirmed before a judge. Being on the At Risk register is no confirmation of ill treatment- it is merely a tool to determine what is happening.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 09, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Well, it could depend on how the leg was broken Redblossom. The parents would not necessarily be convicted for neglect. Funnily enough I have given an example of a broken arm and the subsequent events as you and I were posting! But, of course, if the parents are there, they can take immediate action; if they are not there....
Sorry, it was a broken arm, someone posted a comment about a case in Ilfracombe, on googling for it I found this
No it's my secondary language, but one which I use most, my mother tongue is 'as Gaeilge' ! Why is that any concern of yours or to the points raised ?
Because you do not know how 'ill advised' is used and what it means- this from your response:
"Who "advised" them ? Or are you doing that misrepresentation of the meaning of words again to derail a thread ?"
Definition of ill advised:
ill-ad·vised [il-uhd-vahyzd] Show IPA adjective acting or done without due consideration; imprudent: an ill-advised remark. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ill-advised
ill–ad·vised adjective \ˌil-əd-ˈvīzd\ : not wise or sensible
Full Definition of ILL-ADVISED : resulting from or showing lack of wise and sufficient counsel or deliberation <an ill–advised decision> ill–ad·vised adjective \ˌil-əd-ˈvīzd\ : not wise or sensible http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ill-advised
It does not mean "having been given bad advise by a third party" as you seem to believe.
Advised has changed its meaning from a medieval one of 'how I see it' to a modern one of 'getting directions from another'
ill-advised still uses the ancient meaning.
It is still used in legal English. Where a judge says "I am advised that X is the case" it does not mean that someone has told him/her, it means that that is how he sees it!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: CPN on November 09, 2013, 06:14:15 PM
But as you say other things are also taken into consideration.....
Yes, there seem to have been other factors to take into account in that case Redblossom. In the case my colleague dealt with this was the first "problem" that had come to the notice of anyone
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 09, 2013, 06:15:30 PM
And she seemed such a nice little old widow - husband was a freemason as well 8(0(*
The oldest the widows, the worst ! A widow is the marrying kind ! A late friend of mine was cheated by a little old widow in a train. He fell asleep and when he woke up, his wallet had gone and the widow with it !
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 09, 2013, 11:09:20 PM
I may sound like a fruit bat but I used to think Gerry was giving messages through his bring Madeleine home blogg
Like this one . "..................
daily routine. Yesterday (Sat) at 7am we ran to the monument at the top of the steep cliff overlooking Praia de
Luz. We reached it in 19 minutes.
............. Why would you put that ????
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 09, 2013, 11:18:01 PM
what kind of message could you take out of that ...? probably just taking his mind off things like writing a dairy ...
Depends who's reading obviously .he used to say some weird stuff I remember him asking for the woman by the pool to get in touch with Kate ,surely you don't need to write that on your missing child's webpage
And this
Some of you may have noticed that Sean and Amelie did manage to squeeze in a hair cut!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 09, 2013, 11:38:57 PM
Depends who's reading obviously .he used to say some weird stuff I remember him asking for the woman by the pool to get in touch with Kate ,surely you don't need to write that on your missing child's webpage
And this
Some of you may have noticed that Sean and Amelie did manage to squeeze in a hair cut!
I don't know maybe just banter to keep his blog going ....I never read his blog much ..I was more interested in looking for news on madeleine ...hoping i'd read that she had been found ...
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 09, 2013, 11:45:31 PM
I don't know maybe just banter to keep his blog going ....I never read his blog much ..I was more interested in looking for news on madeleine ...hoping i'd read that she had been found ...
You should read it it's quite interesting .they always were one step a head the trip to heuva (or something ) pj thought that's when Madeleine was moved but the mccanns filmed the trip and boot of car etc That's just one I remember
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 09, 2013, 11:49:32 PM
You should read it it's quite interesting .they always were one step a head the trip to heuva (or something ) pj thought that's when Madeleine was moved but the mccanns filmed the trip and boot of car etc That's just one I remember
I remember this. There was a photo of their car that looked like someone sitting on the back seat and then rumour was that Madeleine was sitting on the back seat.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 09, 2013, 11:53:48 PM
I remember this. There was a photo of their car that looked like someone sitting on the back seat and then rumour was that Madeleine was sitting on the back seat. [/quote
That photo was weird but I think it was a poster on the back window I'll try and find it
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 09, 2013, 11:58:37 PM
You should read it it's quite interesting .they always were one step a head the trip to heuva (or something ) pj thought that's when Madeleine was moved but the mccanns filmed the trip and boot of car etc That's just one I remember
I don't have the links anymore ..I remember the heuva trip and it being a bank holiday when they arrived there ...and tv crew travelled with them ...how could the move a body with all the tv lot there ...its pathetic the theories they came up with ..no wonder the anti lot come up with bizzar theories ... 8-)(--)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 09, 2013, 11:59:02 PM
I remember this. There was a photo of their car that looked like someone sitting on the back seat and then rumour was that Madeleine was sitting on the back seat.
don't know anything about that one ....?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 12:05:00 AM
I remember this. There was a photo of their car that looked like someone sitting on the back seat and then rumour was that Madeleine was sitting on the back seat.
I remember the poster in the car..I think it was a poster anyway and not Madeleine herself..mind you there's been some strange things in the case.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 10, 2013, 12:10:42 AM
Looking at that photo again after so long it looks so real as if she is standing behind the car..weird!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 10, 2013, 12:11:00 AM
It is a poster, you can see the head is outside of the car
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 12:13:16 AM
its obviously a photoshop ... but it freaked me out at first glance ...
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 12:34:01 AM
Just like someone put madeleines head on the he/she with blue nipples and beard doing the daz advert in the sticks >@@(*&) Look at the child's natural hair at the front Someone defo messed with this
Just like someone put madeleines head on the he/she with blue nipples and beard doing the daz advert in the sticks >@@(*&) Look at the child's natural hair at the front Someone defo messed with this
I always thought the Belgium sighting walking past the bank..was a credible sighting aswell..i also remember Matthew James saying she was moved around a lot.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 10, 2013, 01:18:36 AM
I always thought the Belgium sighting walking past the bank..was a credible sighting aswell..i also remember Matthew James saying she was moved around a lot.
Matt james has proved himself in my eyes.
Still loads I cant understand but some of his stuff is just like sign posts if you understand it.
Sorry, I cant elaborate but I am amazed just how his tarots preceded my findings ... and I didn't understand them until I had found things out. But revisiting them was like a hit between the eyes. Spot on !
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 01:28:42 AM
I always thought the Belgium sighting walking past the bank..was a credible sighting aswell..i also remember Matthew James saying she was moved around a lot.
THe Belgium sighting was very interesting too. Almost certainly Madeleine. She is wearing a high quality tartan kilt and Argll type sweater. It is difficult to discerrn the tartan but the overall colours are intertsting.
Then there is the Molenbeek connection via kif (Hemp, cannabis, hashish and various different names) to Zinat in the Rif Mountains of Morocco.
The Rif mountian region grows a huge percentage of the worlds cannabis/ kif. At least 50%. I fancy more but aint looking it up atm.
One of their main european distribution bases for the Kif is Molenbeek in Brussels. A lot of Rif mountain people live and work in Molenbeek because of this link
So Madeleine was seen in the Zinat in the Rif and then again in Molenbeek.
The truly interesting thing is that she was also seen in Leh, high up in the Indian Himalayas. Leh is where 70% of all the hashish that comes in to India arrives. Leh is on the old silk routes. And this little girl was with a Belgian man and a French woman. Until fairly recent history Morocco was a French Protectorate (hope protectorate is the correct expressioin - some time since I researched it ... and I aint doing it again)
So all these connections to the drug industry.
1) Madeleine sightings in Zinat in the Rif Mountains, in Morocco, where it is grown 2) Madeleine sighting around the bank in Molenbeek, a main hub where the kif is processed and distributed. Also where much, if not most, of the population comes from the Rif Mountains in Morocco. 3) Madeleine sighted in Leh in India by three convinced witnesses. Leh, where 70% of the hashish smaoked in India comes in
Some mighty co-incidences there !
And I dont believe in mighty co-incidences, As someones grandma used to say, There isn't smoke without fire
Only my opinion of course.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 01:36:53 AM
Molenbeek (Brussels) sighting
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 01:47:46 AM
Sadie why walk down the street then straight back up ...what was the point in that ...very strange indeed ..and that was the spit of a madeleine and the lady looked like the one on carrying a big bag on the picture what looked like joana and madeleine ... >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 03:05:54 AM
The ghost photo is an optical illusion. The optical cortex of the brain is hard wired to seek stimuli that look like human faces as face recognition is so important.
I have hundreds of examples for teaching on the subject and they are widely available on the internet:
Sadie why walk down the street then straight back up ...what was the point in that ...very strange indeed ..and that was the spit of a madeleine and the lady looked like the one on carrying a big bag on the picture what looked like joana and madeleine ... >@@(*&)
I dont know their thinking Benita and I can only guess. THey were walking around the KBC Bank IIRC. I think that Madeleine was restless and maybe wanted to go to the very wide canal to see the boats and water ... so nanny took her, but I dont KNOW tbh.
I wonder if that duck is always there ! That could be the attraction if so.
I agree there is a likeness, but I am not sure they are the same person. One seems more sturdily built than the other from memory and imo
If I get time, will look at it tomorrow, if you want
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: John on November 10, 2013, 03:17:32 AM
Sadie, how many sightings is that now in which you have claimed it to be definitely Madeleine? Do you not think that the last place an abducted child would be is out in the open mingling with the public?
You are letting your imagination run wild. A bit of reality please!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 03:45:57 AM
Sadie, how many sightings is that now in which you have claimed it to be definitely Madeleine? Do you not think that the last place an abducted child would be is out in the open mingling with the public?
A bit of reality please!
Do you think an abductor would even dream that a person would recognise Madeleine in a fairly quiet area of Morocco? Do you think that with the case getting staleish, an abductor would dream that any person from the UK would be in the dangerous slum area of Brussels called Molenbeek St Jean?
And do you think an abductor would believe that up in the high Himalayas in a place that takes two days by dangerous road from the nearest civilisation, there would be any danger that Madeleine would be sighted? In a scruffy place called Leh? Let alone by two groups?
Visual sightings that I am more or less convinced of = two. Molenbeek in Belgium and Zinat in the Rif Mountains of Morocco.
Because of the apparant drugs link (hashish = Kif = hemp - cannabis), as outlined above and the Belgian father and French mother, I am interested in Leh
Oh and the Carlos Moreira sighting at a snack bar on the N10 at 8 am just about 11 hours after Madeleine went missing from PdL. I believe that one
Any objections, John?
You do realise that I think that I know what happened to Madeleine? Scoff if you like. ?>)()<
As I have said before, he that laughs last laughs longest. 8**8:/: 8(0(*
I must admit there are a few more, but I aint sharing those cos they might be ex-judicy
John, I am happy to be proven wrong, but I have reasons for thinking as I do ... and only SY or The Porto PJ can judge whether my thoughts have any value.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 04:55:29 AM
I don't have the links anymore ..I remember the heuva trip and it being a bank holiday when they arrived there ...and tv crew travelled with them ...how could the move a body with all the tv lot there ...its pathetic the theories they came up with ..no wonder the anti lot come up with bizzar theories ... 8-)(--)
I believe I read that the reporters lost them for two hours
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 09:33:59 AM
Another thing I don't believe is that Clarence works for Kate and Gerry ,I still do believe he works for the government
Yes, so do I. I cannot believe that he would give up a powerful government job to take on the role of mouth piecing for the McCanns, when Madeleine could have been found at any moment and he would have been unemployed. I'm sure he must have got certain sureties that his job would still be open for him if & when it became necessary.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 09:40:52 AM
Another thing I don't believe is that Clarence works for Kate and Gerry ,I still do believe he works for the government
It would be very strange for someone who only held a PR post with the Government for a year before being sent to help the McCanns and who resigned after working less than 18 months, should still be paid as a Government advisor six years later, even though he has had full time jobs with Freud Communications and Burston Marsteller. Before he moved to Government work in 2006, just a year before Madeleine disappeared, he had worked as a reporter and newsreader for the BBC for 20 years.
Your idea that after 18 months with the government hew is still being paid is a little odd.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 09:42:58 AM
Yes, so do I. I cannot believe that he would give up a powerful government job to take on the role of mouth piecing for the McCanns, when Madeleine could have been found at any moment and he would have been unemployed. I'm sure he must have got certain sureties that his job would still be open for him if & when it became necessary.
Isn't he up to be a mp soon ? I've always thought our government sent him for as long as needed .
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:45:46 AM
Yes, so do I. I cannot believe that he would give up a powerful government job to take on the role of mouth piecing for the McCanns, when Madeleine could have been found at any moment and he would have been unemployed. I'm sure he must have got certain sureties that his job would still be open for him if & when it became necessary.
As noted above he had only been doing the job for 18 months. He probably had a career path worked out as a News Reporter he wanted to make more money and have more influence. A few years with the Government then into Private employment at a stellar rate of pay. The McCann case probably advanced this plan by a fe years because of the public recognition and being able to show what he had done to future employers.
I suspect he is on 4 or 5 times the salary he was as a news reporter and is now running for parliament.
It is another myth with no support.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:46:57 AM
It would be very strange for someone who only held a PR post with the Government for a year before being sent to help the McCanns and who resigned after working less than 18 months, should still be paid as a Government advisor six years later, even though he has had full time jobs with Freud Communications and Burston Marsteller. Before he moved to Government work in 2006, just a year before Madeleine disappeared, he had worked as a reporter and newsreader for the BBC for 20 years.
Your idea that after 18 months with the government hew is still being paid is a little odd.
I don't suppose any of us know exactly who is paying him, or for what.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 09:50:39 AM
It would be very strange for someone who only held a PR post with the Government for a year before being sent to help the McCanns and who resigned after working less than 18 months, should still be paid as a Government advisor six years later, even though he has had full time jobs with Freud Communications and Burston Marsteller. Before he moved to Government work in 2006, just a year before Madeleine disappeared, he had worked as a reporter and newsreader for the BBC for 20 years.
Your idea that after 18 months with the government hew is still being paid is a little odd.
Yes very odd .cant help what I think and no one has changed my mind .ive always thought our government is protecting them , just like when all these big rich guys came to help having the names green /Branson //Kennedy/ behind you no one would question how they managed to gain so much so fast .
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 09:52:23 AM
I don't suppose any of us know exactly who is paying him, or for what.
Given that we have evidence that he has had a full time job with two succesive employers over the last five years, that he was only in government employ for 18 months and that he is running as an MP (for which he would not be eligible if he had government employment) I think we can say that it is very unlikely.
Of course, it is up to you to provide proof for your outlandish and probably libellous statement.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 09:53:48 AM
Given that we have evidence that he has had a full time job with two succesive employers over the last five years, that he was only in government employ for 18 months and that he is running as an MP (for which he would not be eligible if he had government employment) I think we can say that it is very unlikely.
Of course, it is up to you to provide proof for your outlandish and probably libellous statement.
I think you will find that I haven't said anything libelous.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Aiofe on November 10, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
I think you will find that I haven't said anything libelous.
To suggest that someone is being paid a stipend by the Government if that is not the case impugns his independence. Especially as he is standing as an MP- a false allegation that he was in the pay of a Conservative led government as a conservative candidate would be severely defamatory. Unless you can prove that you have an excuse for saying it, then it is libellous.
Simple.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 10:03:00 AM
It is not an allegation - it is a belief.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 10:04:52 AM
To suggest that someone is being paid a stipend by the Government if that is not the case impugns his independence. Especially as he is standing as an MP- a false allegation that he was in the pay of a Conservative led government as a conservative candidate would be severely defamatory. Unless you can prove that you have an excuse for saying it, then it is libellous.
Simple.
Pmsl o please
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 10:09:55 AM
So nothing to do with truth just which land your stood on . Didn't he come here with the team of pjs .
Anyway I still think Clarence s working for our government
Different countries have different laws.
If it is true, then it probably isn't libel.
You are somewhat paranoid if you believe Clarence is working in a paid job with the Government. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to broadcast it as that would be defamatory.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 11:11:01 AM
kazzcut ....whats your thoughts on the McCann's being involved in madeleine's disappearance ...are you pro-anti-or fence sitter .. >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 10, 2013, 11:21:56 AM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.0 McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Michael Wright.
ID - What does "negative e-mail" mean?
MW says it refers to all sorts of conspiracy theories that appeared on various forums.
ID - asks if the witness can name some of these forums
MW The 3 Arguidos and Madeleine Foundation. He says Tony Bennett invited Gonçalo Amaral to do conferences in the UK. These forums were full of speculation focused on GA's conclusions. People said those conclusions must be true because GA had been in charge of the initial investigation.
ID - Did the McCanns learn about these forums? How?
MW They learned through me, the family members who monitored the activity and their support group. I wondered whether it was worse to let them know or not to. I didn't want to add up to their pain, but a significant change happened. There were several instances of threats to kidnap the twins on the 3 Arguidos site. Then I couldn't but speak. There was a chat where a poster suggested someone should kidnap a twin to get to the truth.
MW They learned through me, the family members who monitored the activity and their support group.
Hi Michael. 8((()*/
So far as I know there is no 'Skipton Central'. In the early days there was a small group of legally minded people who voluntarily sent copies and screen shots to the McCann's lawyers. Eventually CR set up their own small team to monitor the libellous sites.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 01:14:04 PM
Think I'm a sitter but I don't think they killed her on purpose or not
are you saying they killed madeleine .....but don't think it was on purpose ..my god that's a wild thing to say ...never read anyone say they killed their daughter 8-)(--) .....you talk in riddles a lot of the time 8-)(--)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 01:33:18 PM
are you saying they killed madeleine .....but don't think it was on purpose ..my god that's a wild thing to say ...never read anyone say they killed their daughter 8-)(--) .....you talk in riddles a lot of the time 8-)(--)
Lol no I said I don't think they killed her on purpose or killed her by accident . As being on the fence .ie are they involved
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 01:40:12 PM
Lol no I said I don't think they killed her on purpose or killed her by accident . As being on the fence .ie are they involved
confused kazzcut .... you agreed with sadies posts about the sightings ...but you think madeleine is dead and you think parents involved ...sorry can you explain what you mean im not getting you hun ... >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 10, 2013, 01:53:19 PM
I used to believe she wandered outside, but the dogs route is confusing me, Madeleine could not have unlocked the front doors. Also the tracker dogs are pointing she most probably walked out through the front door.
If it is not the McCanns, which I 100% believe they were not involved I wouldn't be so sure about their friends. IMO The McCanns are blindly trusting the friends. Now not sure who out of the friends group would have had an opportunity, and I am not going to blame them but I think they should be better investigated, their history and contacts.. or maybe it already had happened behind the doors.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 01:56:30 PM
I used to believe she wandered outside, but the dogs route is confusing me, Madeleine could not have unlocked the front doors. Also the tracker dogs are pointing she most probably walked out through the front door.
If it is not the McCanns, which I 100% believe they were not involved I wouldn't be so sure about their friends. IMO The McCanns are blindly trusting the friends. Now not sure who out of the friends group would have had an opportunity, and I am not going to blame them but I think they should be better investigated, their history and contacts.. or maybe it already had happened behind the doors.
What motive do you think one of the friends might have had for taking Madeleine ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 10, 2013, 02:03:42 PM
What motive do you think one of the friends might have had for taking Madeleine ?
Not taking, but selling. I think realistically looking there could be a motive in making money out of it.
Or if someone is maybe blackmailed into doing it.
Again, the friends are the ordinary common people without criminal past or criminal involvement and the three people with opportunity would be Matt, Russell and Jane.
If I was a police I would check out if any of them had any money problems but this was probably done by the UK police in the first days.
It is worth mentioning this subject but it should not turn into some myth with some second hand proofs to it.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 02:22:00 PM
confused kazzcut .... you agreed with sadies posts about the sightings ...but you think madeleine is dead and you think parents involved ...sorry can you explain what you mean im not getting you hun ... >@@(*&)
No I don't believe she is dead . But no one knows do they
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 02:33:06 PM
No I don't believe she is dead . But no one knows do they
Kate & Gerry know,
SKY Television 100 days
GM: "Everything we have done during the last hundred days has focussed on the belief that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted."
Panorama The Mystery of Madeleine McCann (broadcast on 19 November, 2007)
GM: "Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment. Obviously we don't know what happened to her afterwards..."
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 10, 2013, 02:49:54 PM
The press can be so powerful . Yes we know it was in the press saying it's not her Must be true then have you a picture of this family ? No !
Perhaps the family didnt want her picture splshed all over the papers! It wasnt the press saying its not her, they were quoting a named official source, quite a rarity as well, the federal prosecutors spokesperson....obviously the girls identity was checked out.....why on earth would they lie? Maybe she was lucky that she didnt have to get her dna taken.....to prove who she was!!! But youre free to carry on thnking or wishing it really was Madeleine....list of quotes you dont believe here....
GM: "Everything we have done during the last hundred days has focussed on the belief that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted."
Panorama The Mystery of Madeleine McCann (broadcast on 19 November, 2007)
GM: "Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment. Obviously we don't know what happened to her afterwards..."
That's what I was trying to say Hence "they've taken her"
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 03:25:27 PM
that's right no one knows ..but they keep speculating don't they .... 8-)(--)
Somebody knows.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 10, 2013, 03:31:41 PM
There is a statement in the files from a woman who believes she saw Gerry in Lagos, talking to someone on the phone and saying 'please don't do anything to Madeleine'
Kate has addressed this, saying Gerry was elsewhere at the time.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 03:32:44 PM
Everyone has there own opinion on this case and own thoughts and theories . I sometimes think it was supposed to be a planned /fake abduction which went totally wrong . Maybe I just don't want to think it was an abduction . But I'm a nobody regarding this case so it don't matter what I think really went on
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 03:32:57 PM
Everyone has there own opinion on this case and own thoughts and theories . I sometimes think it was supposed to be a planned /fake abduction which went totally wrong . Maybe I just don't want to think it was an abduction . But I'm a nobody regarding this case so it don't matter what I think really went on
I recall there was a school of thought, way back, along those lines. If so, then it went spectacularly wrong
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 10, 2013, 03:41:44 PM
High up..untouchable..why do you think she hasn't been found.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 03:47:02 PM
High up..untouchable..why do you think she hasn't been found.
That is not the only possible reason, besides very few people are untouchable these days, politicans, bankers, celebrities, media editors, etc all still get charged and or tried and or convicted for various offenses...mny go to prison too
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 03:50:36 PM
That is not the only possible reason, besides very few people are untouchable these days, politicans, bankers, celebrities, media editors, etc all still get charged and or tried and or convicted for various offenses...mny go to prison too
Yes they do, but they can remain untouchable for years, decades even, before their misdeeds come to light. It is difficult to envisage who would be able to exercise such power over the period of successive governments.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 03:53:01 PM
Yes they do, but they can remain untouchable for years, decades even, before their misdeeds come to light. It is difficult to envisage who would be able to exercise such power over the period of successive governments.
That is true I suppose.....personally I dont believe it for a second...not even a hint of evidence....except in conspiracy land....eta to fool half the world and its wife, media, PIs, other agencies, two police forces, other professionals, unprecedented..
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 03:57:51 PM
That is not the only possible reason, besides very few people are untouchable these days, politicans, bankers, celebrities, media editors, etc all still get charged and or tried and or convicted for various offenses...mny go to prison too
On 12 September 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel concluded that no Liverpool fans were responsible in any way for the disaster, and that its main cause was a "lack of police control" and crowd safety was "compromised at every level" and overcrowding issues had been recorded two years earlier.
The panel concluded that "up to 41" of the 96 who perished might have survived had the emergency services' reactions and co-ordination been improved.
The findings concluded that 164 witness statements had been altered and 116 statements unfavourable to South Yorkshire Police had been removed. South Yorkshire Police had performed blood alcohol tests on the victims, some of them children, and ran computer checks on the national police database in an attempt to "impugn their reputation".
The report concluded that the then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, Irvine Patnick, passed inaccurate and untrue information from the police to the press.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 04:17:39 PM
I think the link is that Saville was powerful enough to avoid prosecution, even though many in authority knew what he was doing.
Well I doubt the BBC as an organisation or its members or other celebrities or police forces or members of govt or media, would cover up or turn a blind eye to a paedophile snatching of a three yr old.....because he was is so powerful.....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 04:22:57 PM
I think the link is that Saville was powerful enough to avoid prosecution, even though many in authority knew what he was doing.
Yep, point is there are instances of protection for people in high places, & in the case of the Hillsborough disaster cover ups by police & politicians.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 10, 2013, 04:24:36 PM
Well I doubt the BBC as an organisation or its members or other celebrities or police forces or members of govt or media, would cover up or turn a blind eye to a paedophile snatching of a three yr old.....because he was is so powerful.....
I agree, it sounds unlikely.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 04:25:18 PM
Well I doubt the BBC as an organisation or its members or other celebrities or police forces or members of govt or media, would cover up or turn a blind eye to a paedophile snatching of a three yr old.....because he was is so powerful.....
No but Madeleine's disappearance was/is a high profile 'International Incident'.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 04:27:50 PM
No but Madeleine's disappearance was/is a high profile 'International Incident'.
Also I think it's weird how so much of madeleines case is available to us It may be normal and I've just never had to read another case but everything feels so public The case files the ward of court the way we have all been sucked in like sponges
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 04:29:02 PM
Yep, point is there are instances of protection for people in high places, & in the case of the Hillsborough disaster cover ups by police & politicians.
Thats because the police altered evidence and covered up the facts of what THEY did.....they werent covering for anyone else..and of course the politicans and other miserable entities followed suit to protect police
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 04:31:25 PM
That's because the police altered evidence and covered up the facts of what THEY did.....they werent covering for anyone else..and of course the politicans and other miserable entities followed suit to protect police
And just what did Leicetershire police do in Portugal that made Amaral believe they were not keen on where the investigation was going.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 04:35:16 PM
Many [ censored word] go on everyday saying what about other children what about other families yet they talk about Madeleine for hours they don't talk about the others much
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 04:36:12 PM
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id400.html
"There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."
So what exactly is the 'likely outcome,' and why the need for a 'Government' decision?
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
"Nonetheless, it is necessary to recall that a criminal investigation cannot have as a concern the politically correct, nor to have its purpose limited by personal interests, institutional or others, nor to be targeted by intolerable pressures and coercive measures, what is at stake is to ascertain the truth and the fate of the child so those responsible for the mysterious disappearance are brought before Justice."
(Gonçarlo Amaral)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 04:36:36 PM
Ah well, now thats a good question,but pass........one fact is LP were not impartial
eta must say in an official capacity,cant speak for individual officers, infact I would go as afar as to say they were unprofessional
And so if in the glare of the worlds media (International incident) the british police (and uk ambassador, PM, & ex PM) made a huge cock up & had sided with the wrong team, when things started to look not quite so rosey do you think they might have
a) Abandoned the McCanns and hoped the investigation runs aground.
b) Supported the McCanns and ensured the investigation ran aground.
Option b would guarantee a successful outcome.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 05:25:30 PM
And so if in the glare of the worlds media (International incident) the british police (and uk ambassador, PM, & ex PM) made a huge cock up & had sided with the wrong team, when things started to look not quite so rosey do you think they might have
a) Abandoned the McCanns and hoped the investigation runs aground.
b) Supported the McCanns and ensured the investigation ran aground.
Option b would guarantee a successful outcome.
Yes i see your point avoid ten tonnes of eggs on faces.....but thats hardly a good enough excuse when a three yr old has vanished off face of the earth....in fact its pretty diagraceful at best but most in those circles dont care about grace and other such virtues...lots do though.....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: lizzibif. on November 10, 2013, 05:26:34 PM
Didn't amaral say he didn't go for the neglect charge..because he wanted to charge them for something bigger..like covering up a body.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
Yes i see your point avoid ten tonnes of eggs on faces.....
And a good reason to despatch a government spokesman & as Smethurst said 'expunge' the negative press & 'portray' the truth. A portrayal of the truth being not the same as telling it.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 05:33:42 PM
And a good reason to despatch a government spokesman & as Smethurst said 'expunge' the negative press & 'portray' the truth. A portrayal of the truth being not the same as telling it.
Both nauseous odious characters...wouldnt trust either of them as far as I could throw them..
expunge? He hasnt a clue what happened, why would he want to expunge anything...oh....for money .....obviously...well he has miserably failed LOL to expunge much at all
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 05:35:25 PM
And a good reason to despatch a government spokesman & as Smethurst said 'expunge' the negative press & 'portray' the truth. A portrayal of the truth being not the same as telling it.
conspiracy theory..you will be telling me the queens a 12 foot reptile next....much more support for that theory
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 05:37:40 PM
conspiracy theory..you will be telling me the queens a 12 foot reptile next....much more support for that theory
No, smethurst said as much, all documented on video, so no conspiracy theory here ta, do keep up and stop bringing up icke when you want to detract from facts
Edited
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 06:02:23 PM
lets take the pee out of kate time is it ...hows that irrelevant to anything .... 8-)(--)
So why did you think she did that then .wasnt taking the pee was just chatting Kate did something funny so was she taking the pee out of herself
Do you post in two names ? Very similar to another
You can't defend every single post about the mccanns like its personal Non of them are personal to any of us .kate and Gerry left the children that's how all this started . Don't jump on everything I say all the time
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 07:24:45 PM
Do you mean panorama 2007 chat with her relly jon corner?
Can't remember who she was chatting to think she was on the grass by a tree I'll see if I can find .
Why does everything have to be so serious on here biting back etc .
I wasn't actually taking the mick just passing a comment .we don't see eye to eye most of the time but your ok most of the time . I spent years rowing defending and getting upset over Madeleine having the few years break has taken that away ,I do always think about Madeleine and wonder if she is safe etc .
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 07:30:03 PM
So why did you think she did that then .wasnt taking the pee was just chatting Kate did something funny so was she taking the pee out of herself
Do you post in two names ? Very similar to another
You can't defend every single post about the mccanns like its personal Non of them are personal to any of us .kate and Gerry left the children that's how all this started . Don't jump on everything I say all the time
its her accent shes from Liverpool isn't she ....I don't defend every single post about the mccanns ..neither do I jump on everything you say ...yes they left their kids and lost one ...and everyone beats them for it day in and day out ....tbh honest sick of reading it ...it doesn't help anything does it ... >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 07:31:27 PM
its her accent shes from Liverpool isn't she ....I don't defend every single post about the mccanns ..neither do I jump on everything you say ...yes they left their kids and lost one ...and everyone beats them for it day in and day out ....tbh honest sick of reading it ...it doesn't help anything does it ... >@@(*&)
What don't help ? And if you watch the video I was talking about you would know what I was talking about
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 07:34:16 PM
Can't remember who she was chatting to think she was on the grass by a tree I'll see if I can find .
Why does everything have to be so serious on here biting back etc .
I wasn't actually taking the mick just passing a comment .we don't see eye to eye most of the time but your ok most of the time . I spent years rowing defending and getting upset over Madeleine having the few years break has taken that away ,I do always think about Madeleine and wonder if she is safe etc .
I wasnt back biting just asked you a question.....Are you sure you were addressing me there? And not someone else?
Sounds like he says her motive but he has funny accent so maybe their motive
Well thanksbut if it didnt matter you wouldnt have brought it up in first place.....anyway What aor possibly their motive is....true youcant tell with glasweigians but thats how i heard it
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 08:16:01 PM
he definitely says their!! motive ....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 08:16:21 PM
Well thanksbut if it didnt matter you wouldnt have brought it up in first place.....anyway What aor possibly their motive is....true youcant tell with glasweigians but thats how i heard it
Lol you didn't know either
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 08:20:34 PM
Both nauseous odious characters...wouldnt trust either of them as far as I could throw them..
expunge? He hasnt a clue what happened, why would he want to expunge anything...oh....for money .....obviously...well he has miserably failed LOL to expunge much at all
Going back to my conspiracy theory on 'expunge' & 'portray' & political egg on face
Going after Amaral & claiming he was a lone wolf, bungling cop etc, backfired a bit in 2010
Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said.
But later he said that the theory that the parents had covered up Madeleine’s death as outlined in Amaral’s book was one reached by British police on the ground in Portugal too.
“This wasn’t something invented by Amaral,” he insisted. “It was a conclusion reached by the team of Portuguese investigators as well as British police.”
“We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,”
>@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 08:23:50 PM
I never said I did....I too thought he said "her" at one time...it just is not clear at all...its more likely a or her, I dont hear their at all @)(++(*
Maybe a fellow glaswegian here can lipread and or decipher.....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 08:25:22 PM
Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said.
But later he said that the theory that the parents had covered up Madeleine’s death as outlined in Amaral’s book was one reached by British police on the ground in Portugal too.
“This wasn’t something invented by Amaral,” he insisted. “It was a conclusion reached by the team of Portuguese investigators as well as British police.”
“We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,”
>@@(*&)
i.e. they were being protected. >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 10, 2013, 08:32:35 PM
I never said I did....I too thought he said "her" at one time...it just is not clear at all...its more likely a or her, I dont hear their at all @)(++(*
Maybe a fellow glaswegian here can lipread and or decipher.....
her-their sounds very similar to me ...so im going for their ...
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 08:36:36 PM
Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said.
But later he said that the theory that the parents had covered up Madeleine’s death as outlined in Amaral’s book was one reached by British police on the ground in Portugal too.
“This wasn’t something invented by Amaral,” he insisted. “It was a conclusion reached by the team of Portuguese investigators as well as British police.”
“We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,”
>@@(*&)
I am not a conspiracy theorist but there is a slight stench here........well maybe a bit more.....as I posted earlier, the LP were quite unprofessional in adveritsing the findmadeleine website on their police page even after they were made suspects...promoting people to go to THEM with information, how bizarre......
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 08:36:46 PM
what else could it be apart from their >@@(*&)..? and im not jumping on you by the way ...
Well I was just watching and stunned he said her so I went back again and again and again Probably was their but it sounded like her .im sure if he said her the someone would have asked him .
Nothing to write home about I suppose just threw me
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said.
But later he said that the theory that the parents had covered up Madeleine’s death as outlined in Amaral’s book was one reached by British police on the ground in Portugal too.
“This wasn’t something invented by Amaral,” he insisted. “It was a conclusion reached by the team of Portuguese investigators as well as British police.”
“We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,”
>@@(*&)
1) Insp. Tavares de Almeida found guilty of the crime of torture of CP Official Virgolino Borges and given a 2 1/2 year suspended sentence 2) Insp. Goncalo Amaral found guilty of perjury in the torture case of Leonor Cipriano and given a 1 1/2 year suspended sentence
Two criminals in that article, Wonderfulspam. One supporting the other.
Why should we believe such people? They are both mixed up in torture and both criminals.
Please dont offer articles that promote such evil peoples views. Such people have no credibility in the normal world.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 09:03:15 PM
1) Insp. Tavares de Almeida found guilty of the crime of torture of CP Official Virgolino Borges and given a 2 1/2 year suspended sentence 2) Insp. Goncalo Amaral found guilty of perjury in the torture case of Leonor Cipriano and given a 1 1/2 year suspended sentence
Two criminals in that article, Wonderfulspam. One supporting the other.
Why should we believe such people? They are both mixed up in torture and both criminals.
Please dont offer articles that promote such evil peoples views. Such people have no credibility in the normal world.
Suspended sentences, that's all. It's not like they murdered anyone is it?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Mr Gray on November 10, 2013, 09:10:05 PM
Most sensible people would think its wrong to have a convicted criminal in the police force
Most sensible people would get their factsright before posting.....are your really sure Amaral was a serving police officer after he got his ridiculous conviction? @)(++(*
Now whose a silly billy posting imaginings or erroneous memories as facts!
Oh and you carry on posting convicted crimimal,the dramatic effect is astounding.....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 10, 2013, 09:23:27 PM
Most sensible people would think its wrong to have a convicted criminal in the police force
I trust their judgement on the case, I think Amaral comes across as a decent guy who became a victim of politics followed by a vicous smear campaign, he had a right to defend himself by writing his book.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 10, 2013, 09:31:46 PM
Perhaps the family didnt want her picture splshed all over the papers! It wasnt the press saying its not her, they were quoting a named official source, quite a rarity as well, the federal prosecutors spokesperson....obviously the girls identity was checked out.....why on earth would they lie? Maybe she was lucky that she didnt have to get her dna taken.....to prove who she was!!! But youre free to carry on thnking or wishing it really was Madeleine....list of quotes you dont believe here....
Oh BTW they were not walking up and down the street, just one direction, caught from three different cameras placed in different locations
All three places where credible sightings of Madeleine took place,
1) The Rif Mountains (Zinat) in Morocco, 2) seedy Molenbeek St Jean in Brussels and 3) Leh in the high Himalayas in Indai
A fair number of peeps at these places make their bread and butter caviar from drug trafficking and processing hemp. A high percentage of peeps are involved in the "business" in some way, and will earn a decent crust. The others mainly live as paupers.
Where drugs trafficking is concerned there will be gangsters
Anyone been to Morocco and visited such outlying places? .... I have, but not drug running places as far as I am aware. Poverty abounds.
Anyone been up in the Himalayas of India and tasted the life up there? ..... My daughter has. Once again not drug running places, I believe. But poverty abounds there too
And Molenbeek is mainly inhabited by peeps from the Rif. You can bet poverty, along with the gangster type peeps, is there, but quite a few will earn a decent crust
Criminals abound in places like that. Peeps in such places learn very early on to keep their mouths shut, even to lie. One doesn't kill the Goose that lays the golden egg. One keeps to the "Company Rules" and does as one is told.
If bribery doesn't work and it almost certainly would in such poverty stricken places, then gangsters can use gangster methods to silence peeps.
They can persuade people to say what they demand
Just as tortured people can be forced to say things to avoid further torture.... ......and in any case many/most of the officials will already be corrupt, or in fear ... so vulnerable, in such places
The Big Bosses are not going to have a ?billion /?trillion pound business ruined because one person wants to tell the truth.
Sorry but in such places one cannot guarentee the truth
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 09:36:45 PM
All three places where credible sightings of Madeleine took place,
1) The Rif Mountains (Zinat) in Morocco, 2) seedy Molenbeek St Jean in Brussels and 3) Leh in the high Himalayas in Indai
make their bread and butter caviar from drug trafficking and processing hemp. A high percentage of peeps are involved involved in the "business"and will earn a decent crust. The others mainly live as paupers.
Where drugs trafficking is concerned there will be gangsters
Anyone been to Morocco and visited such outlying places? .... I have, but not drug running places as far as I am aware. Poverty abounds.
Anyone been up in the Himalayas of India and tasted the life up there? ..... My daughter has. Once again not drug running places, I believe. But poverty abounds there too
And Molenbeek is mainly inhabited by peeps from the Rif. You can bet poverty, along with the gangster type peeps, is there, but quite a few will earn a decent crust
Criminals abound in places like that. Peeps in such places learn very early on to keep their mouths shut, even to lie. One doesn't kill the Goose that lays the golden egg. One keeps to the "Company Rules" and does as one is told.
If bribery doesn't work and it almost certainly would in such poverty stricken places, then gangsters can use gangster methods to silence peeps.
They can persuade people to say what they demand
Just as tortured people can be forced to say things to avoid further torture.... ......and in any case many/ most of the officials will already be corrupt, in such places
The Big Bosses are not going to have a ?billion /?trillion pound business ruinede because one person wants to tell the truth.
Sorry but in such places one cannot guarentee the truth
Irrelevant to my original post about the statements made from the belgian prosecutors office.....that the child was NOT madeleine, cheers
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Lyall on November 10, 2013, 09:41:23 PM
Pretty offensive stuff, Sadie. You sure you don't work for a tabloid after all >@@(*&)
You should keep all the "the Belgium sighting was definitely Madeleine" self-indulgence to your own dedicated forums/groups.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 10, 2013, 09:41:33 PM
Irrelevant to my original post about the statements made from the belgian prosecutors office.....that the child was NOT madeleine, cheers
If it was Madeleine do you think we would have been told .? Is there still a reward for her
And the morroco photo was 100 percent madeleines head put on the he/she I know I keep on but Madeleine and Bushra have cows licks in their hair only on different sides madeleines and piggy back photo are the same
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 10, 2013, 09:45:30 PM
Suspended sentences, that's all. It's not like they murdered anyone is it?
Of course not and this is libel : Insp. Goncalo Amaral found guilty of perjury in the torture case of Leonor Cipriano and given a 1 1/2 year suspended sentence
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 12:35:18 AM
I'm gobsmacked! Whilst both serving policemen - one commits perjury to cover up torture and the other tortures a witness and because their prison sentences were suspended - that's considered to be no big deal? I've heard it all now.
Can you imagine the reaction if Gerry McCann was found to have a ticket for speeding? He would be crucified.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 01:09:22 AM
Well you tell me what the name of the crime was for which he was given an 18 month suspended prison sentence. It must have a name - and whatever it was - it involved his criminal behaviour regarding the torture of a woman in his custody at the time. That was proved in court - twice.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 01:20:36 AM
What would you call it then, if not perjury? I would be happy to be corrected, but I dont think I am wrong.
I'm sorry, you are.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:29:19 AM
Wasn't Dr Amaral convicted of falsifying evidence to help cover up for three of his officers who were accused of torture. He was also cleared of another charge of failing to report a crime.
Outside court Dr Amaral told Portuguese reporters he was not surprised by the verdict and hinted that he would appeal. He said: 'I wasn't surprised, I was expecting to be convicted. There is a lot of political pressure on the case. 'We trust in justice and this does not end here.' Asked if he felt like a scapegoat, he said: 'Throughout my life I have been a scapegoat for many things. I don't know about this.'
Well you have made the claim. Would you like to prove it please
Thanks, sadie
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 01:34:20 AM
Thank you John
So Amaral has been untruthful and it has been proven in Court.
Now I call that Perjury. Is there a more correct name ?
Amaral has been telling Porkies on paper, it seems, from the Court findings
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 01:34:46 AM
The collective of judges at Faro court - made up of 3 judges and 4 jurors - considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured; even though it could not be proved by whom.
As a result, the 3 PJ officers accused of aggressions were acquitted.
Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates, i.e. that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.
This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Dr Amaral testified to, could not be proved.
His defence, according to what we could read in the papers throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.
Make of that what you may!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 01:49:54 AM
Wasn't Dr Amaral convicted of falsifying evidence to help cover up for three of his officers who were accused of torture. He was also cleared of another charge of failing to report a crime.
No, John, it's a tabloid reporting.. The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up. http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 01:50:53 AM
The collective of judges at Faro court - made up of 3 judges and 4 jurors - considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured; even though it could not be proved by whom.
As a result, the 3 PJ officers accused of aggressions were acquitted.
Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates, i.e. that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.
This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Dr Amaral testified to, could not be proved.
His defence, according to what we could read in the papers throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.
Make of that what you may!
You say that it couldn't be proved, yet it was in Court. The Court upheld the evidence of a specialist Forensic Doctor that the nature and pattern of the bruises excluded a fall down stairs. In his opinion the bruises and lacerations were caused by Torture.
In other words Amaral lied in Court, so it was perjury
Thank you John
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 11, 2013, 01:58:52 AM
No, John, it's a tabloid reporting.. The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up. http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.
The first paragraph of that says (google transalte)
The Court of Faro today condemned by false allegations to a year in prison with a suspended sentence the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral, in the case relating to the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors. However, the accused was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation.
It says he got 12 months but I know that is wrong. He actually got 18 months
He was guilty of Perjury Anne
Please withdraw you false statements
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 11, 2013, 02:01:13 AM
The collective of judges at Faro court - made up of 3 judges and 4 jurors - considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured; even though it could not be proved by whom.
As a result, the 3 PJ officers accused of aggressions were acquitted.
Gonçalo Amaral was found guilty of false testimony because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his subordinates, i.e. that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.
This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Dr Amaral testified to, could not be proved.
His defence, according to what we could read in the papers throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.
Make of that what you may!
So in actual fact he was asking the court to believe that his men had lied to him - and he was just an innocent victim of their dishonesty? IOW he tried to blame his own men to save his own skin. What a hero!
Giving false testimony under oath - is perjury.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 02:10:01 AM
No, John, it's a tabloid reporting.. The 3 police officers accused of torture were exonerated and GA wasn't accused to falsify a document in order to cover that up. http://www.publico.pt/sociedade/noticia/caso-joana-goncalo-amaral-condenado-a-ano-e-meio-de-prisao-com-pena-suspensa-1382307.
Translation
The Court of Faro today condemned by false allegations to a year in prison with a suspended sentence the former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral , in the case relating to the alleged aggressions against Leonor Cipriano by PJ inspectors . However , the accused was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation (failure to report a crime).
The inspector António Cardoso was also convicted with suspended sentence, two years and three months in prison . The remaining defendants were acquitted because , despite having been proved that Leonor Cipriano was assaulted on the premises of PJ, we could not identify the perpetrators . According to the chairman of the panel of judges , the case is " particularly serious in people who aim to fight crime."
The court also stated that the testimony in court of the girl's mother was contradictory, which did not help to establish the facts . Similarly it was not possible to prove that she fell from the stairs, as claimed by the defence. The prosecutor or the assistants can now turn, respectively, with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal.
The process is related to the so-called " Joana case ", dating back to September 12, 2004 , the day the girl, aged eight, disappeared from the village of Figueira, Portimão, Algarve.
A reading of the judgement was made this afternoon by Chairman of the judges. The charges of the Prosecutor against five inspectors and former inspectors Judicial emerged following the interrogation by the PJ in Faro in 2004 , when Leonor appeared with lesions on her face and body in Odemira Prison, where she was on remand.
Three inspectors were accused of the crime of torture, one was accused of the crime of perjury and failure to report and a fifth was accused of the crime of document forgery. The trial began on 27 October 2008.
Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano, and uncle, John Cipriano were sentenced by the Supreme Court to 16 years in prison each, for the crimes of murder and concealment of a body of the child. Four days ago, the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, Aragão Correia, requested the opening of a new investigation in the "Joana case " and the acquittal of the girl's mother, after John Cipriano confessed in writing that he tried to sell her.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 02:21:53 AM
When João Cipriano was asked if he had sexually abused his niece he said in the presence of his lawyer "I did not harm her, I only killed her".
Mas quando lhe perguntaram se abusou da sobrinha respondeu indignado: «Eu não lhe fiz mal, só a matei».
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 02:33:19 AM
The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months. Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace. Who never made an error ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: John on November 11, 2013, 02:56:14 AM
The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months. Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace. Who never made an error ?
I think his understudies effectively stitched him up Anne. He took the rap for them and they got off!
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 11, 2013, 02:56:33 AM
The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months. Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace. Who never made an error ?
IMO this is breaking of professional conduct. Not being honest under oath. For me personally this is a big deal. Big bad stamp left on the professionalism of the individual.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 11, 2013, 10:13:53 AM
The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months. Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace. Who never made an error ?
he should be left in peace.Who never made an error ?
why anne ...?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 11, 2013, 10:49:16 AM
It has been proved (how ?) that LC was assaulted in the HQ of the PJ. The "failure to report" was dismissed.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Kazcutt on November 11, 2013, 05:43:34 PM
Hi
Does anyone remember someone dying and something to do with a suitcase by the harbour
Racking my brains trying to think if this was connected by forums or papers . Also the guy who sold his things to search for Madeleine who also died
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 11, 2013, 06:16:50 PM
Anne guedes your quote regarding amaral ...Who never made an error ? leave him in peace ......could say te same regarding the mcCann's ...but no you hound them like a pack of wolves ...so don't dictate about amaral 8-)(--)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 11, 2013, 06:54:19 PM
It has been proved (how ?) that LC was assaulted in the HQ of the PJ. The "failure to report" was dismissed.
It was not dismissed. Why do you keep saying that ?
Amaral got a criminal conviction of 18 months for what amounted to perjury (lying)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: VIXTE on November 12, 2013, 01:57:43 AM
There was a statement from OC staff I think about a girl who was off work that night but said went to OC club reception at around 9.30-10pm and boyfriend was waiting in the car. Anyone knows who this was?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 12, 2013, 03:51:00 PM
Pretty offensive stuff, Sadie. You sure you don't work for a tabloid after all >@@(*&)
You should keep all the "the Belgium sighting was definitely Madeleine" self-indulgence to your own dedicated forums/groups.
Please DO NOT put words in my mouth I have never said that the Belgian sighting was DEFINITELY Madeleine
But the little girl looks like her She moves like her with similarity in mannerisms imo She is wearing an expensive kilt and sweater, which fits with my suspect She has a Moroccan nanny The place is pertinent, a follow on from The hemp growing area of Zinat in the Rif Mountains, especially when one considers the three sightings together and their drug connections
A lot of pointers, but only observations. THe little girl looks like Madeleine, but I know I could be wrong.
However, imo, it is Madeleine. My opinion.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 12, 2013, 04:02:29 PM
Please DO NOT put words in my mouth I have never said that the Belgian sighting was DEFINITELY Madeleine
But the little girl looks like her She moves like her with similarity in mannerisms imo She is wearing an expensive kilt and sweater, which fits with my suspect She has a Moroccan nanny The place is pertinent, a follow on from The hemp growing area of Zinat in the Rif Mountains, especially when one considers the three sightings together and their drug connections
A lot of pointers, but only observations. THe little girl looks like Madeleine, but I know I could be wrong.
However, imo, it is Madeleine. My opinion.
Why on earth would drug runners be touting a kidnapped 4 year old along with them? Especially one that hasn't been disguised at all. Wouldn't it be easier and more straight forward to get a T-shirt printed with "HELLO, I'M A CRIMINAL" ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 12, 2013, 06:36:24 PM
There was a statement from OC staff I think about a girl who was off work that night but said went to OC club reception at around 9.30-10pm and boyfriend was waiting in the car. Anyone knows who this was?
The failure to denounce was dismissed. He signed a document without reading it or inquiring about it, it seems. Luz knows that better than me. I'm not pretending he was not responsible since he was in charge. Not only he got a fine, but he was suspended and as he had quitted the PJ I think he didn't get his pension money for those months. Call him a criminal is perfectly inept. He was punished, he paid, he should be left in peace. Who never made an error ?
Inept? No I think you will find Anne that when posters call Amaral a criminal it is a factual statement. A criminal is a person who has been found guilty of committing a crime. Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of a crime so he is a criminal. He has a record.
Your logic and way of thinking means, that the paedophile who is convicted of sexually molesting children, once his time is served is no longer a criminal. He is a criminal, he has committed a crime. Maybe the offences are not the same but the basic principles are. So Anne, Goncalo Amaral is a criminal.
You state 'Who never made an error?' Again pure hypocrisy from you Anne. The McCanns made an error of judgement by dining at the Tapas bar, they thought it would be safe and they thought their checks would have been adequate enough to protect their children, yet you Anne along with other people, will not let the McCanns forget about their mistake. Every day their error of judgement is used as a stick to bash them with. Every day, some members of this forum post comments that are highly critical of the McCanns.
Every day, the McCanns have their lives dug over by internet posters who think they are better detectives than those in Scotland Yard and the PJ. And every day, the fact the the McCanns are not suspected and neither are they persons of interest by both Scotland Yard and the PJ is totally ignored. Why is that? Is it because some of you can't accept the fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?
Some people here, won't accept that the McCanns made an error of judgement, why is that? So the mantra from the supporters of Amaral is we must ignore his criminal record and never mention it, but we beat the McCanns daily for their error of judgement and please remember the McCanns do NOT have a criminal record, unlike Amaral.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 13, 2013, 11:39:11 AM
Inept? No I think you will find Anne that when posters call Amaral a criminal it is a factual statement. A criminal is a person who has been found guilty of committing a crime. Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of a crime so he is a criminal. He has a record.
Your logic and way of thinking means, that the paedophile who is convicted of sexually molesting children, once his time is served is no longer a criminal. He is a criminal, he has committed a crime. Maybe the offences are not the same but the basic principles are. So Anne, Goncalo Amaral is a criminal.
You state 'Who never made an error?' Again pure hypocrisy from you Anne. The McCanns made an error of judgement by dining at the Tapas bar, they thought it would be safe and they thought their checks would have been adequate enough to protect their children, yet you Anne along with other people, will not let the McCanns forget about their mistake. Every day their error of judgement is used as a stick to bash them with. Every day, some members of this forum post comments that are highly critical of the McCanns.
Every day, the McCanns have their lives dug over by internet posters who think they are better detectives than those in Scotland Yard and the PJ. And every day, the fact the the McCanns are not suspected and neither are they persons of interest by both Scotland Yard and the PJ is totally ignored. Why is that? Is it because some of you can't accept the fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?
Some people here, won't accept that the McCanns made an error of judgement, why is that? So the mantra from the supporters of Amaral is we must ignore his criminal record and never mention it, but we beat the McCanns daily for their error of judgement and please remember the McCanns do NOT have a criminal record, unlike Amaral.
Amen ... 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 13, 2013, 12:06:20 PM
Inept? No I think you will find Anne that when posters call Amaral a criminal it is a factual statement. A criminal is a person who has been found guilty of committing a crime. Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of a crime so he is a criminal. He has a record.
Your logic and way of thinking means, that the paedophile who is convicted of sexually molesting children, once his time is served is no longer a criminal. He is a criminal, he has committed a crime. Maybe the offences are not the same but the basic principles are. So Anne, Goncalo Amaral is a criminal.
You state 'Who never made an error?' Again pure hypocrisy from you Anne. The McCanns made an error of judgement by dining at the Tapas bar, they thought it would be safe and they thought their checks would have been adequate enough to protect their children, yet you Anne along with other people, will not let the McCanns forget about their mistake. Every day their error of judgement is used as a stick to bash them with. Every day, some members of this forum post comments that are highly critical of the McCanns.
Every day, the McCanns have their lives dug over by internet posters who think they are better detectives than those in Scotland Yard and the PJ. And every day, the fact the the McCanns are not suspected and neither are they persons of interest by both Scotland Yard and the PJ is totally ignored. Why is that? Is it because some of you can't accept the fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?
Some people here, won't accept that the McCanns made an error of judgement, why is that? So the mantra from the supporters of Amaral is we must ignore his criminal record and never mention it, but we beat the McCanns daily for their error of judgement and please remember the McCanns do NOT have a criminal record, unlike Amaral.
"fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?"
Is there any proof of this?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: colombosstogey on November 13, 2013, 12:20:24 PM
Inept? No I think you will find Anne that when posters call Amaral a criminal it is a factual statement. A criminal is a person who has been found guilty of committing a crime. Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of a crime so he is a criminal. He has a record.
Your logic and way of thinking means, that the paedophile who is convicted of sexually molesting children, once his time is served is no longer a criminal. He is a criminal, he has committed a crime. Maybe the offences are not the same but the basic principles are. So Anne, Goncalo Amaral is a criminal.
You state 'Who never made an error?' Again pure hypocrisy from you Anne. The McCanns made an error of judgement by dining at the Tapas bar, they thought it would be safe and they thought their checks would have been adequate enough to protect their children, yet you Anne along with other people, will not let the McCanns forget about their mistake. Every day their error of judgement is used as a stick to bash them with. Every day, some members of this forum post comments that are highly critical of the McCanns.
Every day, the McCanns have their lives dug over by internet posters who think they are better detectives than those in Scotland Yard and the PJ. And every day, the fact the the McCanns are not suspected and neither are they persons of interest by both Scotland Yard and the PJ is totally ignored. Why is that? Is it because some of you can't accept the fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?
Some people here, won't accept that the McCanns made an error of judgement, why is that? So the mantra from the supporters of Amaral is we must ignore his criminal record and never mention it, but we beat the McCanns daily for their error of judgement and please remember the McCanns do NOT have a criminal record, unlike Amaral.
The difference is, the error of judgement the McCanns made, probably made it possible for the so called pedophile CRIMINAL to take their daughter away in the first place.
With Amaral his crime was simply signing off a document he had not read.
Gonçalo Amaral, a former coordinator of the PJ's Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, who was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation, was condemned to one and a half years over the crime of false deposition, with a suspended sentence over a similar period.
His CRIME hardly led to anyone being harmed in anyway he did make a mistake his mistake was to TRUST his men, and the same goes for the McCanns their mistake was to TRUST their babysitting routine was going to keep their children SAFE. They BOTH MADE A HUGE ERROR OF JUDGEMENT.
FOR ME BOTH MISTAKES should now be put to rest, but no we are asked to stop bringing up the MISTAKE by the McCanns, but in the same breath we have to keep dragging up a mistake Mr Amaral made.
By the way who has now served his sentence and was NEVER sacked for this as he went on to work with the McCann case.
Its all so silly really it serves no purpose constantly banging on about Mr Amaral. He is not in charge has not been for many years and the great Scotland Yard is on the case. and I agree it is totally pointless in harping on about the McCanns mistake either its done and it cant be undone....
Perhaps we can all agree to let both MISTAKES rest now.
I for one am fed up of reading about both of them.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: TTSOFAFM on November 13, 2013, 12:29:15 PM
"fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?"
Is there any proof of this?
I think DC Redwood's words are plenty of proof. And that of the PJ. What more do you need? If you are expecting to peruse the evidence collated by Scotland Yard and the PJ since the review was sanctioned, then I think you will find that you are very much misguided. One thing is certain, the Police do NOT have to prove anything to forum posters. And to be perfectly honest it is none of your business. Some of you just think you have the right and try to make it your business, and some of you can't understand the confidentiality of a thorough Police investigation, can you?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: TTSOFAFM on November 13, 2013, 12:34:48 PM
The difference is, the error of judgement the McCanns made, probably made it possible for the so called pedophile CRIMINAL to take their daughter away in the first place.
With Amaral his crime was simply signing off a document he had not read.
Gonçalo Amaral, a former coordinator of the PJ's Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, who was acquitted of the crime of omission of denunciation, was condemned to one and a half years over the crime of false deposition, with a suspended sentence over a similar period.
His CRIME hardly led to anyone being harmed in anyway he did make a mistake his mistake was to TRUST his men, and the same goes for the McCanns their mistake was to TRUST their babysitting routine was going to keep their children SAFE. They BOTH MADE A HUGE ERROR OF JUDGEMENT.
FOR ME BOTH MISTAKES should now be put to rest, but no we are asked to stop bringing up the MISTAKE by the McCanns, but in the same breath we have to keep dragging up a mistake Mr Amaral made.
By the way who has now served his sentence and was NEVER sacked for this as he went on to work with the McCann case.
Its all so silly really it serves no purpose constantly banging on about Mr Amaral. He is not in charge has not been for many years and the great Scotland Yard is on the case. and I agree it is totally pointless in harping on about the McCanns mistake either its done and it cant be undone....
Perhaps we can all agree to let both MISTAKES rest now.
I for one am fed up of reading about both of them.
Quote
The difference is, the error of judgement the McCanns made, probably made it possible for the so called pedophile CRIMINAL to take their daughter away in the first place.
The McCanns have to live with that thought every day of the year. But you are missing the point. The person who took Madeleine is to blame. What about those molestations Kate mentions in her book? The ones where children were molested and their parents WERE in the apartment. What about the incident DC Redwood mentions in 2006 where someone was looking into a babies cot and was disturbed by luck and fled.
Those parents were there, it didn't stop it happening did it? What if the McCanns had been there asleep and in a deep sleep that they didn't hear anything, would you blame them then?
What about the thousands of burglaries that happen when people are out? Are these people to blame because someone decided to rob their home and they decided to go out?
Keep blaming the McCanns will NOT solve this case. Blaming the McCanns will NOT find Madeleine. So why bash them with every stick possible. They have a daughter who is missing. Why can't you for once in your lives show some compassion and empathy? Why can't you do what is best for Madeleine and help find who took her?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 13, 2013, 12:44:57 PM
The McCanns have to live with that thought every day of the year. But you are missing the point. The person who took Madeleine is to blame. What about those molestations Kate mentions in her book? The ones where children were molested and their parents WERE in the apartment. What about the incident DC Redwood mentions in 2006 where someone was looking into a babies cot and was disturbed by luck and fled.
Those parents were there, it didn't stop it happening did it? What if the McCanns had been there asleep and in a deep sleep that they didn't hear anything, would you blame them then?
What about the thousands of burglaries that happen when people are out? Are these people to blame because someone decided to rob their home and they decided to go out?
Keep blaming the McCanns will NOT solve this case. Blaming the McCanns will NOT find Madeleine. So why bash them with every stick possible. They have a daughter who is missing. Why can't you for once in your lives show some compassion and empathy? Why can't you do what is best for Madeleine and help find who took her?
How do you suggest we all do that ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 13, 2013, 01:39:36 PM
Seven sets of PIs couldnt manage it Two police forces couldnt A review and a new SY investigsgion aint done it yet....far as we know Worldwide intensive 6 yr media campaign hasnt managed it A couple posters hint at having worked it all out along with suspects.... All in all millions of pounds in the double figures hasnt managed it Etc Etc >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: colombosstogey on November 13, 2013, 01:47:40 PM
The McCanns have to live with that thought every day of the year. But you are missing the point. The person who took Madeleine is to blame. What about those molestations Kate mentions in her book? The ones where children were molested and their parents WERE in the apartment. What about the incident DC Redwood mentions in 2006 where someone was looking into a babies cot and was disturbed by luck and fled.
Those parents were there, it didn't stop it happening did it? What if the McCanns had been there asleep and in a deep sleep that they didn't hear anything, would you blame them then?
What about the thousands of burglaries that happen when people are out? Are these people to blame because someone decided to rob their home and they decided to go out?
Keep blaming the McCanns will NOT solve this case. Blaming the McCanns will NOT find Madeleine. So why bash them with every stick possible. They have a daughter who is missing. Why can't you for once in your lives show some compassion and empathy? Why can't you do what is best for Madeleine and help find who took her?
IF you read my post that is not the case.
I wish both errors of judgement would be put to rest. It just seems to me that nearly every post is nothing to do with sluething its just about point scoring.
I said we need to move on, all the answer had to be was yes I agree.....
You state WHY CANT YOU DO WHAT IS BEST FOR MADELEIENE AND HELP FIND WHO TOOK HER...
IF you are talking to me then you never read my post again just read what you wanted to read.
WE ALL NEED to stop harping on about Amaral and the McCanns, non of it is finding the child.
IMHO of course.
Mind you if PJ, SY, so many PI, and lots of appeals hasnt found her or even a trace of her, possibly some of it is because the focus is too much on Amaral the criminal and not enough on actual facts that might lead to finding her.........
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 13, 2013, 02:06:41 PM
I think DC Redwood's words are plenty of proof. And that of the PJ. What more do you need? If you are expecting to peruse the evidence collated by Scotland Yard and the PJ since the review was sanctioned, then I think you will find that you are very much misguided. One thing is certain, the Police do NOT have to prove anything to forum posters. And to be perfectly honest it is none of your business. Some of you just think you have the right and try to make it your business, and some of you can't understand the confidentiality of a thorough Police investigation, can you?
"fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?"
Is there any proof of this?
"I think DC Redwood's words are plenty of proof."
So just opinion then.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 13, 2013, 02:16:00 PM
You can start by trying to find out what time Madeleine left the apartment? Now that is hard to do because there's many opportunities. On all of the 3 checks for starters, even before 8.30pm. To narrow this down you have to go through every possible theory and work out what is possible and what is not. Could an abductor be hiding in that apartment for that amount of time? IMO No. Could Madeleine have left the apartment on any of the 3 checks. IMO Yes. Could she have left before 8.30pm? IMO Yes.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 13, 2013, 02:18:09 PM
I think DC Redwood's words are plenty of proof. And that of the PJ. What more do you need? If you are expecting to peruse the evidence collated by Scotland Yard and the PJ since the review was sanctioned, then I think you will find that you are very much misguided. One thing is certain, the Police do NOT have to prove anything to forum posters. And to be perfectly honest it is none of your business. Some of you just think you have the right and try to make it your business, and some of you can't understand the confidentiality of a thorough Police investigation, can you?
Rather fancy I've heard this line of reasoning from someone else, just recently. 8(0(*
We have every right to take as much interest as we wish.
I think most of us recognise the confidentiality of investigations, so we wait for the police announcements while viewing sceptically the output of the media.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 13, 2013, 02:23:01 PM
If the case is no ones business then no case and no news is anyones business....everything and anything in the public domIn is anyones and everyones business......
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 02:31:42 PM
Inept? No I think you will find Anne that when posters call Amaral a criminal it is a factual statement. A criminal is a person who has been found guilty of committing a crime. Goncalo Amaral was found guilty of a crime so he is a criminal. He has a record.
Your logic and way of thinking means, that the paedophile who is convicted of sexually molesting children, once his time is served is no longer a criminal. He is a criminal, he has committed a crime. Maybe the offences are not the same but the basic principles are. So Anne, Goncalo Amaral is a criminal.
You state 'Who never made an error?' Again pure hypocrisy from you Anne. The McCanns made an error of judgement by dining at the Tapas bar, they thought it would be safe and they thought their checks would have been adequate enough to protect their children, yet you Anne along with other people, will not let the McCanns forget about their mistake. Every day their error of judgement is used as a stick to bash them with. Every day, some members of this forum post comments that are highly critical of the McCanns.
Every day, the McCanns have their lives dug over by internet posters who think they are better detectives than those in Scotland Yard and the PJ. And every day, the fact the the McCanns are not suspected and neither are they persons of interest by both Scotland Yard and the PJ is totally ignored. Why is that? Is it because some of you can't accept the fact that the McCanns are NOT responsible for what happened to their daughter?
Some people here, won't accept that the McCanns made an error of judgement, why is that? So the mantra from the supporters of Amaral is we must ignore his criminal record and never mention it, but we beat the McCanns daily for their error of judgement and please remember the McCanns do NOT have a criminal record, unlike Amaral.
Every day that the McCann breathe without a care for their daughter, is a day too much in their lives.
Before the usual trendy make their misinterpretations: every day that the MCCann live without caring for their daughter - and there are too many - it's a day too many in their lives.
Your "copy pasted" drivel is just trash....
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Luz on November 13, 2013, 02:51:34 PM
UK posters now detain the power to determine that a portuguese citizen is guilty of a crime; Every silly nutthead must abide to their decision;
The same subjects decided that some special british citizens were innocent;
Those same subects accept that the crime of making a 3 year old disappear was the art of a mysterious abductor (foreigner, in preference) with many faces, many bodies and in many places;
Those same subjects have no problem in accusing innocent people in order to bring up the poor, unfortunate, careless and guilty McCann parents, as offended.
I don't mean to insult the British people, on the contrary, but like in Portugal, in the islands there are some stinky friends.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: pathfinder73 on November 13, 2013, 06:54:08 PM
DCI Andy Redwood said: "From the outset we have approached this review with a completely open mind, placing Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do. We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive; and the second that she is sadly dead.
"Based on the former we are releasing the age progression image today with a specific appeal.
"If you know where Madeleine McCann is now or you have new direct information/evidence about what has happened to her then please contact us.
"The second point of appeal today is in relation to those who were at the resort of Praia da Luz between 28 April and 3 May 2007. If you were either on holiday or in residence in the resort during this period, particularly in the vicinity of the Ocean Club, and you have not been spoken to by police either here or in Portugal then please call us on 0800 0961011 if you are within the UK. The number for non-UK residents is +44 2071580 126. Alternatively if you do not want to speak to us directly you can contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111."
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Danamithar on November 13, 2013, 06:55:21 PM
Simply......Why were Special Branch used to take the McCanns home from East Midlands airport on their return from Portugal ? Anyone know ? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 13, 2013, 07:02:38 PM
That does beg the question why was such security deemed necessary?
Exactly......Special Branch !!!! >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 13, 2013, 07:09:56 PM
Did he also have a security escort on the plane, or just to & from the airports?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Danamithar on November 13, 2013, 07:12:08 PM
ben needhams mother kerry met by special branch.......Googled that...erm nope, nadda >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 13, 2013, 07:16:30 PM
There was something definitely special about the McCanns
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Danamithar on November 13, 2013, 07:27:19 PM
As this thread is anything and everything, so its not off topic.....Can someone remind me of the books Gerry had for bedtime reading ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: jassi on November 13, 2013, 07:29:47 PM
Grimm's Fairytale. 8(0(*
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 13, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
Remember that many VIP believed and supported them, to say nothing of those who sent donations to the fund. All of a sudden those innocent victims were questioned by a foreign police ! All this made them special.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: gilet on November 13, 2013, 09:43:11 PM
UK posters now detain the power to determine that a portuguese citizen is guilty of a crime; Every silly nutthead must abide to their decision;
The same subjects decided that some special british citizens were innocent;
Those same subects accept that the crime of making a 3 year old disappear was the art of a mysterious abductor (foreigner, in preference) with many faces, many bodies and in many places;
Those same subjects have no problem in accusing innocent people in order to bring up the poor, unfortunate, careless and guilty McCann parents, as offended.
I don't mean to insult the British people, on the contrary, but like in Portugal, in the islands there are some stinky friends.
It was not British citizens who declared Goncalo da Sousa Amaral a criminal.
That was the action of a Portuguese court.
That action was later confirmed by an appeal court.
Your idiotic attempt to claim that it is the British who are making out that this disgraced ex-copper is a criminal is madness.
When you take your head out of the sand and accept that the chap who got booted off the McCann case because he could not keep his mouth shut actually is a criminal who either by incompetence (by not knowing what he was signing) or by deliberate action tried to cover up a vile abusive crime then maybe you can be taken seriously.
Till you accept what the Portuguese Courts have stated about this man your posts look totally ridiculous.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 13, 2013, 10:09:00 PM
The person who took Madeleine is to blame. What about those molestations Kate mentions in her book? The ones where children were molested and their parents WERE in the apartment.
As there's no evidence of those facts, it's difficult to follow your thinking process.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 14, 2013, 02:53:05 AM
As there's no evidence of those facts, it's difficult to follow your thinking process.
There is evidence, you just dont want to accept it and instead prefer to believe that Kate McCAnn publically lied in her book about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police - not to mention the families who came forward to relate their experiences of sexual predators entering their apartments and abusing their childen - who you apparently prefer to think are all a figment of Kate's imagination.
From Kate's book. - regarding information from the files.
Quote In the meantime I set to work on the files................................................I spent hours scanning through......................................... Then I began on the few sections that were in English, primarily statements from British witnesses of information forwarded to the PJ BY THE LEICESTESHIRE POLICE...
One of the most concerning and upsetting pieces of information to emerge quite early was the record of sexual crimes against children in the Algarve........... I read of five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds whille their parents slept in another room In three further incidents children encountered an intruder in their bedrooms who was presumably disturbed before he had the chance to carry out an assault.
I guess these were the reports Bill Henderson, the British consul at the time of Madeleins abducton had told me about.
These incidents had occurred within an hour's drive of Pdl over the three years prior to Madeleine's disappearance . The PJ had never mentioned any of them to us. In fact I gathered FROM THE FILES some of them hadn't even been recorded by the authorities at the time they were reported (evidently they were not considered to be actual crimes) So they might never have been brought to light if the parents of these children hadn't been brave enough to come forward to the British Police after Madelieine was taken and relive their nightmares. They did so in the belief that there could be a link between what had happened to their children and what happened to her. It broke my heart to READ the terrible accounts of these devastated parents......................................................... End quote
If you really think the above is just a a pack of lies and that Kate didn't mind that in telling them she was letting the Leicestershire Police, the British Consul and the GNR know what a liar she was - maybe you could explain why she would take such a 'suicidal' decision and decide to reveal herself as a massive liar to those quite important people?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 14, 2013, 11:22:55 AM
There is evidence, you just dont want to accept it and instead prefer to believe that Kate McCAnn publically lied in her book about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police - not to mention the families who came forward to relate their experiences of sexual predators entering their apartments and abusing their childen - who you apparently prefer to think are all a figment of Kate's imagination.
I'm not saying she's lying but that Mrs McCann tells what she wants (no source is given, this is not serious) and people believe her story telling if they want. You can't suppose that the diplomatic, GNR and PJ authorities have read "Madeleine" ! And if one did by chance, would s/he have time to loose inquiring and proving that Mrs McCann tells or not what suits her agenda ? The myth is : British (how extraordinary ! not German, not Dutch...) kids were sexually abused IN BED by a perpetrator who introduced himself how ? Big mystery ! As it is a big mystery why the parents didn't contact the PJ. Instead of spreading this myth, Benice, why don't you write to Mrs McCann asking for some evidence ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Carana on November 14, 2013, 11:39:04 AM
I'm not saying she's lying but that Mrs McCann tells what she wants (no source is given, this is not serious) and people believe her story telling if they want. You can't suppose that the diplomatic, GNR and PJ authorities have read "Madeleine" ! And if one did by chance, would s/he have time to loose inquiring and proving that Mrs McCann tells or not what suits her agenda ? The myth is : British (how extraordinary ! not German, not Dutch...) kids were sexually abused IN BED by a perpetrator who introduced himself how ? Big mystery ! As it is a big mystery why the parents didn't contact the PJ. Instead of spreading this myth, Benice, why don't you write to Mrs McCann asking for some evidence ?
If German or Dutch citizens had reported any similar instances to their own police, LP may not have had a copy.
If any non-British nationals had reported any such incidents in the area whilst there, the local police force to contact would have been the GNR in a rural area, wouldn't it? And that it would be the GNR's responsibility to pass on suspicions of serious crimes beyond their mandate to the PJ?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benita on November 14, 2013, 11:42:27 AM
There is evidence, you just dont want to accept it and instead prefer to believe that Kate McCAnn publically lied in her book about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police - not to mention the families who came forward to relate their experiences of sexual predators entering their apartments and abusing their childen - who you apparently prefer to think are all a figment of Kate's imagination.
From Kate's book. - regarding information from the files.
Quote In the meantime I set to work on the files................................................I spent hours scanning through......................................... Then I began on the few sections that were in English, primarily statements from British witnesses of information forwarded to the PJ BY THE LEICESTESHIRE POLICE...
One of the most concerning and upsetting pieces of information to emerge quite early was the record of sexual crimes against children in the Algarve........... I read of five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds whille their parents slept in another room In three further incidents children encountered an intruder in their bedrooms who was presumably disturbed before he had the chance to carry out an assault.
I guess these were the reports Bill Henderson, the British consul at the time of Madeleins abducton had told me about.
These incidents had occurred within an hour's drive of Pdl over the three years prior to Madeleine's disappearance . The PJ had never mentioned any of them to us. In fact I gathered FROM THE FILES some of them hadn't even been recorded by the authorities at the time they were reported (evidently they were not considered to be actual crimes) So they might never have been brought to light if the parents of these children hadn't been brave enough to come forward to the British Police after Madelieine was taken and relive their nightmares. They did so in the belief that there could be a link between what had happened to their children and what happened to her. It broke my heart to READ the terrible accounts of these devastated parents......................................................... End quote
If you really think the above is just a a pack of lies and that Kate didn't mind that in telling them she was letting the Leicestershire Police, the British Consul and the GNR know what a liar she was - maybe you could explain why she would take such a 'suicidal' decision and decide to reveal herself as a massive liar to those quite important people?
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 12:04:44 PM
There is evidence, you just dont want to accept it and instead prefer to believe that Kate McCAnn publically lied in her book about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police - not to mention the families who came forward to relate their experiences of sexual predators entering their apartments and abusing their childen - who you apparently prefer to think are all a figment of Kate's imagination.
From Kate's book. - regarding information from the files.
Quote In the meantime I set to work on the files................................................I spent hours scanning through......................................... Then I began on the few sections that were in English, primarily statements from British witnesses of information forwarded to the PJ BY THE LEICESTESHIRE POLICE...
One of the most concerning and upsetting pieces of information to emerge quite early was the record of sexual crimes against children in the Algarve........... I read of five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds whille their parents slept in another room In three further incidents children encountered an intruder in their bedrooms who was presumably disturbed before he had the chance to carry out an assault.
I guess these were the reports Bill Henderson, the British consul at the time of Madeleins abducton had told me about.
These incidents had occurred within an hour's drive of Pdl over the three years prior to Madeleine's disappearance . The PJ had never mentioned any of them to us. In fact I gathered FROM THE FILES some of them hadn't even been recorded by the authorities at the time they were reported (evidently they were not considered to be actual crimes) So they might never have been brought to light if the parents of these children hadn't been brave enough to come forward to the British Police after Madelieine was taken and relive their nightmares. They did so in the belief that there could be a link between what had happened to their children and what happened to her. It broke my heart to READ the terrible accounts of these devastated parents......................................................... End quote
If you really think the above is just a a pack of lies and that Kate didn't mind that in telling them she was letting the Leicestershire Police, the British Consul and the GNR know what a liar she was - maybe you could explain why she would take such a 'suicidal' decision and decide to reveal herself as a massive liar to those quite important people?
Me too. 8@??)( 8@??)(
Cracking post Benice. Well done.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 14, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
If German or Dutch citizens had reported any similar instances to their own police, LP may not have had a copy.
If any non-British nationals had reported any such incidents in the area whilst there, the local police force to contact would have been the GNR in a rural area, wouldn't it? And that it would be the GNR's responsibility to pass on suspicions of serious crimes beyond their mandate to the PJ?
Carana, a crime committed in Portugal whatever the nationality of the offender and offended is Portugal Justice business. You can't force people to report this kind of crime, especially if they have introduced themselves the perpetrator (then there's no breaking-in). I know that many will hide it out of shame or thinking it's better for the child, like rape was concealed (now it's reported much more). If there's breaking-in it concerns the PJ, not the GNR. If it's a sexual crime, it concerns a special brigade in the PJ.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: sadie on November 14, 2013, 12:24:54 PM
Carana, a crime committed in Portugal whatever the nationality of the offender and offended is Portugal Justice business. You can't force people to report this kind of crime, especially if they have introduced themselves the perpetrator (then there's no breaking-in). I know that many will hide it out of shame or thinking it's better for the child, like rape was concealed (now it's reported much more). If there's breaking-in it concerns the PJ, not the GNR. If it's a sexual crime, it concerns a special brigade in the PJ.
Anne I cannot anymore quote where I found it, but it was on record that the PJ refused to look for certain missing kids, making some excuse.
As much has, the document has probably been whitewashed out.
Someone is making a great job of whitewashing out lots of documents that are against the PJ , or help the Mccanns .
It wouldn't surprise me if we were helping them, actually, by identifying everthing that might be troublesome to them.
Screeshots are needed.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: LagosBen on November 14, 2013, 12:27:48 PM
There is evidence, you just dont want to accept it and instead prefer to believe that Kate McCAnn publically lied in her book about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police - not to mention the families who came forward to relate their experiences of sexual predators entering their apartments and abusing their childen - who you apparently prefer to think are all a figment of Kate's imagination.
From Kate's book. - regarding information from the files.
Quote In the meantime I set to work on the files................................................I spent hours scanning through......................................... Then I began on the few sections that were in English, primarily statements from British witnesses of information forwarded to the PJ BY THE LEICESTESHIRE POLICE...
One of the most concerning and upsetting pieces of information to emerge quite early was the record of sexual crimes against children in the Algarve........... I read of five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds whille their parents slept in another room In three further incidents children encountered an intruder in their bedrooms who was presumably disturbed before he had the chance to carry out an assault.
I guess these were the reports Bill Henderson, the British consul at the time of Madeleins abducton had told me about.
These incidents had occurred within an hour's drive of Pdl over the three years prior to Madeleine's disappearance . The PJ had never mentioned any of them to us. In fact I gathered FROM THE FILES some of them hadn't even been recorded by the authorities at the time they were reported (evidently they were not considered to be actual crimes) So they might never have been brought to light if the parents of these children hadn't been brave enough to come forward to the British Police after Madelieine was taken and relive their nightmares. They did so in the belief that there could be a link between what had happened to their children and what happened to her. It broke my heart to READ the terrible accounts of these devastated parents......................................................... End quote
If you really think the above is just a a pack of lies and that Kate didn't mind that in telling them she was letting the Leicestershire Police, the British Consul and the GNR know what a liar she was - maybe you could explain why she would take such a 'suicidal' decision and decide to reveal herself as a massive liar to those quite important people?
8@??)(
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 14, 2013, 12:44:33 PM
I'm not saying she's lying but that Mrs McCann tells what she wants (no source is given, this is not serious) and people believe her story telling if they want. You can't suppose that the diplomatic, GNR and PJ authorities have read "Madeleine" ! And if one did by chance, would s/he have time to loose inquiring and proving that Mrs McCann tells or not what suits her agenda ? The myth is : British (how extraordinary ! not German, not Dutch...) kids were sexually abused IN BED by a perpetrator who introduced himself how ? Big mystery ! As it is a big mystery why the parents didn't contact the PJ. Instead of spreading this myth, Benice, why don't you write to Mrs McCann asking for some evidence ?
So do you think the British Consul is a liar and the Leicestershire police are also lying about the British families who contacted them after Madeleine disappeared? Or are you saying it is the British families who are lying when they came forward and related their own experiences re sexual predators assaulting their children? Or are you saying Kate simply made the whole chapter up and none of the above ever happened? Please clarify.
The first direct contact with the police for the public is with the GNR - not the PJ. But you already know that don't you.
Anyone who thinks KM would be stupid enough to tell enormous porkies about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police in a book which is going to read by thousands - and make claims in it which could be proved to be lies in an instant - is seriously deluding themselves IMO. Kate would have to be simple-minded to even contemplate such a imbecilic move.
Why don't you take your own advice and write to the British Consul and the Leicestershire Police and ask them whether Kate's claims about them is a pack of lies instead of trying to spread the myth that what Kate wrote about them and the British families in her book never happened.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: LagosBen on November 14, 2013, 12:47:47 PM
So do you think the British Consul is a liar and the Leicestershire police are also lying about the British families who contacted them after Madeleine disappeared? Or are you saying it is the British families who are lying when they came forward and related their own experiences re sexual predators assaulting their children? Or are you saying Kate simply made the whole chapter up and none of the above ever happened? Please clarify.
The first direct contact with the police for the public is with the GNR - not the PJ. But you already know that don't you.
Anyone who thinks KM would be stupid enough to tell enormous porkies about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police in a book which is going to read by thousands - and make claims in it which could be proved to be lies in an instant - is seriously deluding themselves IMO. Kate would have to be simple-minded to even contemplate such a imbecilic move.
Why don't you take your own advice and write to the British Consul and the Leicestershire Police and ask them whether Kate's claims about them is a pack of lies instead of trying to spread the myth that what Kate wrote about them and the British families in her book never happened.
Benice Benice -Don't you get it yet? Everyone is lying except the Portuguese contingent on here and elsewhere.
And Snr.Amaral is awaiting his Sainthood. 8()-000(
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: TTSOFAFM on November 14, 2013, 08:41:16 PM
There is evidence, you just dont want to accept it and instead prefer to believe that Kate McCAnn publically lied in her book about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police - not to mention the families who came forward to relate their experiences of sexual predators entering their apartments and abusing their childen - who you apparently prefer to think are all a figment of Kate's imagination.
From Kate's book. - regarding information from the files.
Quote In the meantime I set to work on the files................................................I spent hours scanning through......................................... Then I began on the few sections that were in English, primarily statements from British witnesses of information forwarded to the PJ BY THE LEICESTESHIRE POLICE...
One of the most concerning and upsetting pieces of information to emerge quite early was the record of sexual crimes against children in the Algarve........... I read of five cases of British children on holiday being sexually abused in their beds whille their parents slept in another room In three further incidents children encountered an intruder in their bedrooms who was presumably disturbed before he had the chance to carry out an assault.
I guess these were the reports Bill Henderson, the British consul at the time of Madeleins abducton had told me about.
These incidents had occurred within an hour's drive of Pdl over the three years prior to Madeleine's disappearance . The PJ had never mentioned any of them to us. In fact I gathered FROM THE FILES some of them hadn't even been recorded by the authorities at the time they were reported (evidently they were not considered to be actual crimes) So they might never have been brought to light if the parents of these children hadn't been brave enough to come forward to the British Police after Madelieine was taken and relive their nightmares. They did so in the belief that there could be a link between what had happened to their children and what happened to her. It broke my heart to READ the terrible accounts of these devastated parents......................................................... End quote
If you really think the above is just a a pack of lies and that Kate didn't mind that in telling them she was letting the Leicestershire Police, the British Consul and the GNR know what a liar she was - maybe you could explain why she would take such a 'suicidal' decision and decide to reveal herself as a massive liar to those quite important people?
Spot on Benice 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 14, 2013, 09:02:08 PM
So do you think the British Consul is a liar I'm sure he's not. Do you have a oral or written (not on tabloïd) cite of him speaking of kids sexually assaulted in the Algarve ? If you don't, you are spreading a myth.
and the Leicestershire police are also lying about the British families who contacted them after Madeleine disappeared? Same thing. Have you a oral or written cite ? If you don't, that's myth spreading.
Or are you saying it is the British families who are lying when they came forward and related their own experiences re sexual predators assaulting their children? I'm not saying that. You can't mention "British families" in such a serious occurrence without stating they're identified by authorities.
Or are you saying Kate simply made the whole chapter up and none of the above ever happened? Please clarify. If you don't provide the cites I'm requesting above, I'll have to say that it's a question of belief.
The first direct contact with the police for the public is with the GNR - not the PJ. But you already know that don't you. Not at all, you're wrong. The 112 sends you what you need. When a fire started in my building, they sent the firemen, not the GNR.
Anyone who thinks KM would be stupid enough to tell enormous porkies about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police in a book which is going to read by thousands - and make claims in it which could be proved to be lies in an instant - is seriously deluding themselves IMO. Kate would have to be simple-minded to even contemplate such a imbecilic move. Anyone who thinks that authorities will read "Madeleine" risks to be deluded : they don't have time for that !
Why don't you take your own advice and write to the British Consul and the Leicestershire Police and ask them whether Kate's claims about them is a pack of lies instead of trying to spread the myth that what Kate wrote about them and the British families in her book never happened. I'm not interested in that, Benice. I've heard sad stories of this type : people invite a guy for a drink, two, three, the guy can't drive his car because he's drunk, he's invited to stay and takes (or tries to, he's drunk..) advantage of the situation. A bit hard to confess to the police... And what a shame to have introduced a perpetrator...
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 15, 2013, 09:25:19 AM
Benice said Why don't you take your own advice and write to the British Consul and the Leicestershire Police and ask them whether Kate's claims about them is a pack of lies instead of trying to spread the myth that what Kate wrote about them and the British families in her book never happened.
Anne said I'm not interested in that, Benice. I've heard sad stories of this type : people invite a guy for a drink, two, three, the guy can't drive his car because he's drunk, he's invited to stay and takes (or tries to, he's drunk..) advantage of the situation. A bit hard to confess to the police... And what a shame to have introduced a perpetrator...-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the above - I'm glad to see from the rest of your post that you don't think the British Consul is a liar Anne - and I am sure you will also agree that the families who came forward to report the sexual abuse of their children to the UK police would not be publicly identified - for very obvious reasons.
IMO it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that people who actually played an active part in this case i.e. the British Consul, members of the Leicestershire police and also even members of the GNR would all be too busy to read Kate's book - and therefore she could safely fill it with libellous comments about them without fear of being exposed. Perhaps you should rethink that one - as it strongly suggests that Kate and the people involved in checking her book before it was published - were all gibbering idiots.
Your suggestion that all of the British parents who reported, firstly to the GNR and then the UK police, the vile sexual attacks on their children whilst on holiday in Portugal were all drunks who invited paedaphiles in and therefore were to blame for the abuse their children suffered, is profoundly insulting to all of those British families.
If you are determined to propagate and spread the myth that these sexual attacks on so many British children did not happen - or that they did not happen as their parents reported - I think you need to come up with a more convincing 'story' than that one,
Here is an extract from a letter of complaint to the GNR from the parent of one of those children - (or as you apparently would prefer to believe - from a drunken British holidaymaker who allowed her child to be attacked in her bed by a paedaphile) -which imo clearly indicates that the predator was a total stranger and not someone who had been invited to stay.
Quote:
It is difficult to see with this lack of investigation or interest how a profile of this man can be built up. It did not appear to us that there was any great incentive or determination to find the offender and bring him to justice................Furthermore, it could all have been so much worse......indeed this man could go on to do much worse to another child if he's not stopped. Unquote
6 months later - Madeleine was abducted.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Angelo222 on November 15, 2013, 09:36:51 AM
When the Brits go abroad they lose all sense of reality in many cases and partake in conduct which they never would do when back home. This in itself renders a golden opportunity to those monsters who would take advantage of such a situation. The lifting of Madeleine being such a scenario.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Lyall on November 15, 2013, 09:37:31 AM
So do you think the British Consul is a liar and the Leicestershire police are also lying about the British families who contacted them after Madeleine disappeared? Or are you saying it is the British families who are lying when they came forward and related their own experiences re sexual predators assaulting their children? Or are you saying Kate simply made the whole chapter up and none of the above ever happened? Please clarify.
The first direct contact with the police for the public is with the GNR - not the PJ. But you already know that don't you.
Anyone who thinks KM would be stupid enough to tell enormous porkies about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police in a book which is going to read by thousands - and make claims in it which could be proved to be lies in an instant - is seriously deluding themselves IMO. Kate would have to be simple-minded to even contemplate such a imbecilic move.
Why don't you take your own advice and write to the British Consul and the Leicestershire Police and ask them whether Kate's claims about them is a pack of lies instead of trying to spread the myth that what Kate wrote about them and the British families in her book never happened.
Lies is old fashioned Benice. Spin is now the word.
How much mention of these attacks was there in the Portuguese papers (English language ones included) before May 2007?
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 15, 2013, 10:04:19 AM
When the Brits go abroad they lose all sense of reality in many cases and partake in conduct which they never would do when back home. This in itself renders a golden opportunity to those monsters who would take advantage of such a situation. The lifting of Madeleine being such a scenario.
Quite a sweeping generalisation Angelo - particularly as none of those British families who came forward to the UK police come into that 'category'. They were all in their apartments when their children were molested. That in itself suggests that even if the whole McCann family were in their apartment - it doesn't guarantee that Madeleine would not have been taken. IMO
Must go out now.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 15, 2013, 10:12:13 AM
Why don't you take your own advice and write to the British Consul and the Leicestershire Police and ask them whether Kate's claims about them is a pack of lies instead of trying to spread the myth that what Kate wrote about them and the British families in her book never happened.
I never suggested victims should be identified, a brief statement of the British Consul or a PJ file or a statement of the LC would be sufficient to establish facts. Nothing of that exists and this is a fact, not a myth. You argue that it is a fact because Mrs McCann doesn't and can't lie. She had proved she could and even wrote it. Her unsupported story, spread, becomes a myth. You better leave Mrs McCann spread alone stories that have by the way nothing to do with Madeleine. Remember the McCanns denied that Madeleine could have been harmed in bed as those British kids allegedly were.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: colombosstogey on November 15, 2013, 01:55:19 PM
So what did happen to the mystery couple or were they the ones who were in the Tapas at the same time as the McCanns.
We can confirm that a couple staying in the same block as apartment 5a were interviewed last February.
They were in their apartment on the night Madeleine vanished. Afterwards they wrote an account of what they saw but were never formally interviewed by Portuguese detectives.
They had been at a restaurant earlier in the evening and left at about 9pm.
On their way home they walked directly past the entrance to the Ocean Club pool, where the “Tapas 7” (the name given to the friends eating with the McCanns on the night Madeleine disappeared) were enjoying the meal with Kate and Gerry.
They walked past apartment 5a but noticed nothing untoward. The woman said in her statement: “I stood on the balcony at about 9.15 with a whisky.
“I saw people eating at the tapas bar and children in the play area. We went to bed at 10pm-ish. We were woken up by our bell ringing at 11.30pm. It was a friend of the McCanns, saying that a little girl had been abducted. The friend asked if we had a computer so they could get the media involved in the search.
“Two police were on the corner of our block, one lady said that off-duty police had come and were searching. We did see single men on mobiles while we were out who could have been police.”
The couple took part in the search for Madeleine and then returned to their apartment.
The woman’s statement continues: “We walked back up towards our apartment, a group had gathered on the corner. The McCanns were in bits, he was crying on the shoulder of a friend. She was screaming: ‘The f*****g b........s have taken her’. Finally, at around 4am, we said: ‘Is it OK if we go to bed?’ We directed this comment towards a man in a white shirt and jeans, who seemed to be authoritative.”
At the couple’s home here, two Yard officers questioned them separately for three hours and got them to sign lengthy statements. They further interviewed them this year to double check their information.
The couple are key because at precisely 9.15pm on May 3, Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, said she left the tapas bar and walked past Gerry, who was talking to holidaymaker Jez Wilkins outside apartment 5a.
Neither Gerry nor Jez said they saw Jane. She reported that she had seen a man carrying a child, believed to be Madeleine, walking across the top of the road.
At the time she had not realised the significance. Officers asked the couple if they saw Jane, Gerry or Jez but they insist they did not.
The Sunday Express has visited the couple’s holiday apartment, which looks over the tapas bar. From its balcony you can see directly into the garden of apartment 5a.
The woman said: “We have one of the best views of the whole block. We are sure of the timings. If we had seen anyone we would have remembered.
“We will continue to answer the Yard’s questions. We have given our fingerprints and DNA. We were happy to assist. They should be left to get on with their inquiries.”
When the Brits go abroad they lose all sense of reality in many cases and partake in conduct which they never would do when back home. This in itself renders a golden opportunity to those monsters who would take advantage of such a situation. The lifting of Madeleine being such a scenario.
If you excuse me, that's a ridiculous excuse. Either you are responsible or you aren't - it doesn't matter the place or circumstances you are at.
In my opinion the question about the McCann is not if they were irresponsible British tourists but if they had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter.
I don't buy their "negligence fairy tail", never had and never will.
They know exactly what happened to their daughter, and they have been supporting this very insulting myth, about their alleged negligence, because it obfuscates the real truth. The truth must be very ugly or they wouldn't have confessed to something that being tarnishing can offer them a pretense alibi. For six years people have preferred to accept that a little girl has been abducted/kidnapped than to put their logic and reason to operate. There were no opened doors, there was no abduction,...whatever happened had the hands of the parents in it.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Redblossom on November 15, 2013, 02:06:13 PM
I believe the mystery couple are different people to the couple that gave the tip off about them, and who were reinterviewed by SY....(the Moyses)... See this thread
But yea, who knows if that bit is true....and if so, who were they? the Mccanns themselves if anyone, cant see strangers walking into someones house to soothe the kids!!
that was to colombosstogey....sorry cross posted...
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Luz on November 15, 2013, 02:45:44 PM
It's amazing how alleged molestations are invoked here but none were ever reported to portuguese or uk diplomatic services. It seems that only some privileged people in here have access to such information.
Unfortunately we are used to this sort of misinformation, but fortunately people are now well aware of the tactics the little servants under the McCann payroll recur to.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 16, 2013, 01:14:25 AM
I never suggested victims should be identified, a brief statement of the British Consul or a PJ file or a statement of the LC would be sufficient to establish facts. Nothing of that exists and this is a fact, not a myth. You argue that it is a fact because Mrs McCann doesn't and can't lie. She had proved she could and even wrote it. Her unsupported story, spread, becomes a myth. You better leave Mrs McCann spread alone stories that have by the way nothing to do with Madeleine. Remember the McCanns denied that Madeleine could have been harmed in bed as those British kids allegedly were.
I argue the fact that Kate McCann would not be so stupid as to make massively libellous claims in her book, by falsely attributing statements to other people which could easily be exposed by them as lies.
Anyone who thinks she would do that is seriously deluding themselves IMO - because it makes no sense to deliberately leave herself open to such easily provable instances of libel - and risk her book being dead in the water in record time once it was revealed that substantial parts of her book were downright lies - as well as the added risk of being sued for libel.
IMO The fact that the children of at least 8 British families were targetted by paedaphiles who entered their apartments whilst on holiday in the Algarve - all within a short driving distance of PdL is extremely pertinent to the McCann case.
A further quote from Kate's book:
I cast my mind back to what the British consul had told me in the police station in Portimao that first day about the reports there had been of intruders getting into bed with children. I needed to know more about this.
I got in touch with the retired British consul for the Algarve. He told me that he used to have regular monthly meetings with the British tour operators along the coast in Albufeira, at which crime was invariably one of the topics covered. At one of those meetings in August 2006 he had been informed by the tour operators of the spate of incidents I'd heard about the day after Madeleine was taken, in which an intruder had got into holiday apartments at night climbed into childrens's beds and subjected them to various forms and degrees of molestation. It seemed the attacker would often lock the door to the parents' bedroom before assaulting the child. In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father's aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.
It was believed that this offender (or offenders) watched for patterns and routines in a family's behaviour, established 'weaknesses' in the security of their apartments and determined in advance where the parents and children slept. Cold shivers ran down my spine as it hit home that this might have applied to us. The British tour operators had been keen for this information to remain confidential (and you don't have to be a genius to work out why that might be). Unquote
With regard to your last sentence Anne, the McCanns do not know what happened to their daughter, but until there is proof that she is dead, they will carry on searching for her. Just like Kerry Needham. I find it difficult to believe there are people who do not appear to have the ability to understand that.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 16, 2013, 02:52:19 AM
It's amazing how alleged molestations are invoked here but none were ever reported to portuguese or uk diplomatic services. It seems that only some privileged people in here have access to such information.
Unfortunately we are used to this sort of misinformation, but fortunately people are now well aware of the tactics the little servants under the McCann payroll recur to.
One of the more ridiculous myths spread by some [ censored word] IMO.
BTW when are you going to produce the evidence of your claim that Amaral's conviction for Perjury has been quashed?
If there are no official documents which you can produce - then even a statement from the man himself confirming that his honour has been restored and his criminal conviction has been stricken from the records will do. I presume that if that is the case he will also be keen to take the Prison Director to court for libel.
I await your evidence with interest.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 16, 2013, 08:51:27 AM
One of the more ridiculous myths spread by some [ censored word] IMO.
BTW when are you going to produce the evidence of your claim that Amaral's conviction for Perjury has been quashed?
If there are no official documents which you can produce - then even a statement from the man himself confirming that his honour has been restored and his criminal conviction has been stricken from the records will do. I presume that if that is the case he will also be keen to take the Prison Director to court for libel.
I await your evidence with interest.
There's another board for that matter, Benice.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 16, 2013, 09:06:41 AM
I argue the fact that Kate McCann would not be so stupid as to make massively libellous claims in her book, by falsely attributing statements to other people which could easily be exposed by them as lies.
The only fact here, Benice, is treating your opinion about Mrs McCann as a fact. So please, instead of saying "8 families were assaulted in the Algarve", say "Mrs McCann says in her book that..." If you don't do that you're spreading a myth. If it were true and had been reported to the police, it would be known and the conditions in which assaults happened would be known. No use to reveal identities and places. If it is true but hasn't been reported to the police for some reason, then shame on Mrs McCann who betrayed a secret for the sake of her agenda.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: Benice on November 16, 2013, 11:39:09 AM
The only fact here, Benice, is treating your opinion about Mrs McCann as a fact.
So please, instead of saying "8 families were assaulted in the Algarve", say "Mrs McCann says in her book that..."
If you don't do that you're spreading a myth.[/b]If it were true and had been reported to the police, it would be known and the conditions in which assaults happened would be known. No use to reveal identities and places. If it is true but hasn't been reported to the police for some reason, then shame on Mrs McCann who betrayed a secret for the sake of her agenda.
LOL - why do I have to say ''Mrs McCann says in her book''..... when it was already crystal clear to anyone (by virtue of the fact that I'd already quoted her book in my posts) - that I was talking about what Mrs McCann says in her book? Your comment makes no sense to me.
To read her book applying your 'conditions - 'in case a myth is created' - it seems to me you are asking the reader to suspend all common sense, logic and reasoned thought. Would KM deliberately set out to make totally false claims about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police in her book - leaving herself wide open to numerous libel suits and insodoing also proving herself to be a massive liar to those same people? Why would any sane person do that - and why would any intelligent person believe that she would? It makes no sense.
What 'secret' has Kate betrayed and for what reason Anne? I'm intrigued to know.
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 16, 2013, 12:07:32 PM
LOL - why do I have to say ''Mrs McCann says in her book''..... when it was already crystal clear to anyone (by virtue of the fact that I'd already quoted her book in my posts) - that I was talking about what Mrs McCann says in her book? Your comment makes no sense to me.
To read her book applying your 'conditions - 'in case a myth is created' - it seems to me you are asking the reader to suspend all common sense, logic and reasoned thought. Would KM deliberately set out to make totally false claims about the British Consul, the GNR and the Leicestershire police in her book - leaving herself wide open to numerous libel suits and insodoing also proving herself to be a massive liar to those same people? Why would any sane person do that - and why would any intelligent person believe that she would? It makes no sense.
What 'secret' has Kate betrayed and for what reason Anne? I'm intrigued to know.
Unless you find a direct source of the GNR, LC and British Consul, this is a myth and you're spreading it. There are two possible reasons why you'll not find such a reference : 1) this is pure rumour/gossip (see many studies about how rumours are born) or 2) Mrs McCann is spreading facts that neither the British Consul, nor the LC nor the GNR communicated to the public. Why ? There's only one explanation : it suits her abduction in bed invention and her innocence claim (kids sexually abused with parents close by).
Title: Re: Anything and everything
Post by: AnneGuedes on November 16, 2013, 12:12:03 PM
Ah, Benice, most people can't afford to be litigious and think they have better to do. You live only once.