A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?

[Mr Gray]

so the McCanns are protected by the libel laws of the uk...not much of a conspiracy is it

[Mr Gray]

Oh but it had by sir mitchell
 

who threatened libel action


well thats what bullies do
 


as for it being libellous in portugal, dream on....no lower court is going to go against a higher court judgement.....

 so Mitchell threatened amaral with the law... I thought policemen respected the law...not amaral

[Redblossom]

so Mitchell threatened amaral with the law... I thought policemen respected the law...not amaral

Well you can avoid twist and spin and derail and avoid debate, just go do it with someone else now who is willing to waste their time
 

[Mr Gray]

Well you can avoid twist and spin and derail and avoid debate, just go do it with someone else now who is willing to waste their time
 

what was the debate again

[Mr Gray]

oh yes ...are the press gagged

no they just have to obey the law......

[j.rob]

The version of events that the Portugese police believed in conflicts with the McCann's theory. You could argue that what the McCann's are getting into the media via Clarence Mitchell is libellous.

There is no evidence to support the McCann version of events - there are masses of contradictions in the stories given. Yet the version of events is deemed as the only 'true' version. Given that the were not in the room when their daughter disappeared (or so they claim) then by definition they do not know what happened to her.

So by definition they are not telling the truth - as they cannot KNOW what happened unless they were there when it happened......

.....or unless they had a hand in the manner of her disappearance.......apart from leaving her unattended.

And given that the felt an abduction was so unlikely, whey did they reach that conclusion?

What they say does not  make sense.

[j.rob]

Other people can also seek protection under libel laws - that is not a privilege reserved for the McCanns. Their insistence that their version of events is the only true version suggests that the think everyone else is lying. But they have no evidence that everyone else is lying.

Apart from anything, there are plenty of people who do not believe them who have no vested interests whatsoever and have simply reached that conclusion after listening to them and reading their witness statements and other witness statements.

A lot of people who have said things that didn't support their version of events have no ulterior motive. They have simply reported what they saw/heard/witnessed.

Of course, if the Portugese police were on the right track, then one can see why the McCanns would be so insistent that they messed up the case. And so keen to get coverage into the press that supports their version of events.

[Lyall]

Well said j.rob

[j.rob]

oh yes ...are the press gagged

no they just have to obey the law......

Yes, there are libel laws to protect people but most people can't afford to use them as it costs so much money. But obviously, if you hire a massive law firm like Carter Ruck then you can afford to. Where is that fund money has not been used in legal costs by the McCanns. What money is being used to pay for Clarence Mitchell? Who is footing the bill for all the high profile visits that the McCanns have carried out which got extensive media coverage. How exactly have those visits helped in the search for Madeleine?

Why did the McCann's not search for Madeleine on the night she is alleged to have been abducted? Kate herself in media interviews did not dispute that they did not join the search that night. Why?

What were they doing between the time Madeleine was reported abducted and the time that the police were called/actually arrived? This would have been a critical few hours, if it had been an abduction.

Why did the McCanns have so little faith in the lost child procedure which was put into effect by Mark Warner and which clearly would have served a useful function in the case of a missing child?

Most people also cannot afford to hire expensive spin doctors and media experts to influence the media.

[AnneGuedes]

The version of events that the Portugese police believed in conflicts with the McCann's theory. You could argue that what the McCann's are getting into the media via Clarence Mitchell is libellous.

There is no evidence to support the McCann version of events - there are masses of contradictions in the stories given. Yet the version of events is deemed as the only 'true' version. Given that the were not in the room when their daughter disappeared (or so they claim) then by definition they do not know what happened to her.

Absolutely, it simply libels the PJ and the MP who orientates it.

[j.rob]

so the McCanns are protected by the libel laws of the uk...not much of a conspiracy is it

Everyone is theoretically protected by libel laws, but most people cannot afford it. And they are difficult to win for the average person.

As for conspiracy or pie in the sky theories - well, now you mention it, there IS one that has been given much media coverage. But I don't believe it.

[AnneGuedes]

What were they doing between the time Madeleine was reported abducted and the time that the police were called/actually arrived? This would have been a critical few hours, if it had been an abduction.

There are two different versions : Mr McCann went to the creche, according to "Madeleine" (2010) and Mr McCann went to the main reception according to himself (sept 2007).
Those two variants don't fit well with Mr McCann asking Mr Oldfield to go to the main reception in order to ask them to call the police.
Mrs Payne says SHE asked Mr Oldfield to go and ask to call the police.
No wonder the MP wanted a reconstruction..

[sadie]

There are two different versions : Mr McCann went to the creche, according to "Madeleine" (2010) and Mr McCann went to the main reception according to himself (sept 2007).
Those two variants don't fit well with Mr McCann asking Mr Oldfield to go to the main reception in order to ask them to call the police.
Mrs Payne says SHE asked Mr Oldfield to go and ask to call the police.
No wonder the MP wanted a reconstruction..

It is quite clear from the statements that Matt went to the reception immediately the realisation that an abduction had happened sunk in.  This was in the first 15 minutes or so after finding Madeleine gone.


Taking the back route it was under 250 metres and running it would have taken under a minute.

It was worked out accurately by gilet on a previous thread.


When Gerry went later then he may well have gone both into the creche and the main reception, cos I believe they were in the same building.  Please correct me if I am wrong in saying that.

[AnneGuedes]

When Gerry went later then he may well have gone both into the creche and the main reception, cos I believe they were in the same building.  Please correct me if I am wrong in saying that.

They're in the same building, but Mr McCann stated only that he went to the Main Reception (where he allegedly had sent Mr Oldfield) and nothing more.
He likely knows better than any one else what he did, doesn't he ?

[Benice]

Yes, there are libel laws to protect people but most people can't afford to use them as it costs so much money. But obviously, if you hire a massive law firm like Carter Ruck then you can afford to. Where is that fund money has not been used in legal costs by the McCanns. What money is being used to pay for Clarence Mitchell? Who is footing the bill for all the high profile visits that the McCanns have carried out which got extensive media coverage. How exactly have those visits helped in the search for Madeleine?

Why did the McCann's not search for Madeleine on the night she is alleged to have been abducted? Kate herself in media interviews did not dispute that they did not join the search that night. Why?

What were they doing between the time Madeleine was reported abducted and the time that the police were called/actually arrived? This would have been a critical few hours, if it had been an abduction.

Why did the McCanns have so little faith in the lost child procedure which was put into effect by Mark Warner and which clearly would have served a useful function in the case of a missing child?

Most people also cannot afford to hire expensive spin doctors and media experts to influence the media.

For goodness sake  - all the above has been done to death.
 
Carter Ruck have been paid no money for their services - on a no win no fee basis. 
 
IIRC Clarence Mitchell was paid for by a benefactor (Kennedy?)
. 
The McCann did search on the first night - but they also spent time back at 5A waiting for the police and then talking to the police.  They went out again at dawn.
 
Kate was talking about the later searches involving locals etc in her interview - not the first night. 

The alarm was raised at 10.00 the police arrived at 11.00 - in that hour the McCanns searched, were waiting for the police and were NOT coping with what had happened.   

What evidence do you have that the McCanns criticised the MW search procedure?

There was no way the McCanns could have dealt with hundreds of reporters and other media.     CM was sent out to help them with that massive problem.  They didn't ask for him to come.