Documentaries & Articles for Discussion

[Brietta]

And what a wonderful source of information they have proved to be.

Have I missed something here ?? How did they progress the search for Madeleine McCann either at the time or subsequently ??

[jassi]

Were they supposed to?

[Brietta]

Were they supposed to?

Probably not since at that time the investigation appeared to have lost interest in Madeleine in preference to focusing all their resources on her parents and/or their friends.

[Carana]

Probably not since at that time the investigation appeared to have lost interest in Madeleine in preference to focusing all their resources on her parents and/or their friends.

Personally, I found them interesting for a number of reasons.

They were verbatim for one thing (including the questions). Not only did that eliminate the potential for confusion in the PJ tripartite summary statements, it made them come across as the human beings that they are (to me at least).

The first one I read (from memory) was JT's. Up until then, I couldn't work out why the media (pro-Amaral as it turned out) kept trying to portray her as a liar. That rog in particular was quite an eyeopener for me. I hadn't realised the difficulties in providing an e-fit / artist's sketch, for example, or the Murat saga.

[mercury]

The first I saw of the dog videos was the short clip (the car one) in the Sun, then videos started appearing on Levy's blog - the 5A one first. This argument about different versions floating around has been going on for years. At the time, I went back to check dates of when I first saw them and the dates of the video uploads on Levy's channel (before they were taken down by Vimeo or whatever the service was): they were the same. The short sequence of CC being knocked off and then suddenly ending up in the middle of the villa lounge is the same. There IS a cut in the edited footage (as CC is suddenly in a different spot), but that is the version that was originally uploaded.

The extended versions are clearly not the full footage, but (IMO) would have been edited by the PJ to be able to play the key moments to play to Kate / Gerry and presumably the lawyer. At the time, they may have hoped that they'd be able to play it in court.

I have no recollection of Paulo being involved in the videos. I DO have what is now a vague recollection that he'd said he'd obtained the rogs by writing off for them (on one of the 3A threads). My only doubt now (as it's such a long time ago) is whether he was explaining how he'd got hold of the DVD files, but I still think he was talking about the rogs.

Who mentioned any Paulo?
The videos have the same footage (as I already said)  but the original Levy one was in time order, the one linked to frequently now starts at the villa.
I doubt the PJ took the trouble to sit and edit a video before playing it all back to the Mccanns. They will have "stopped and played"  at any relevant parts.

There remains no evidence that the  rogatories were "tampered with". IMO it is just another ploy to discredit what IS in the files. And it is not convincing in any way shape or form.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Probably not since at that time the investigation appeared to have lost interest in Madeleine in preference to focusing all their resources on her parents and/or their friends.

Evidence? Got any?

Because investigating a missing child would and should involve asking parents and those who claimed to have seen her alive before 10 pm and they would be asked some serious questions.  Are you suggesting they just stopped looking ?  Well, that is the McCann line.. help us we are innocent they are not looking for Maddie, hang on neither are we...joggin and bloggin

[Mr Gray]

''A TODDLER avoided falling from a fourth story window after her head got stuck between the bars.

The child was left home alone and managed to crawl out of the window of her home.

Luckily her head got stuck in the bars which stopped her from falling to the street below.''

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/6618148/Toddler-dangling-from-window-saved-by-stuck-head.html?CMP=spklr-_-S9SunSocial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-thesun-_-20150902-_-News-_-230980205

Over the last eight years, the McCanns have made a big play of saying ''How could we have known our child would be abducted?''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

' The risk of abduction is not the primary reason why young children should not be left home alone. In fact, in terms of how often it happens, it's low down on the list. Having an accident is far more likely. Most accidents to children happen in the home. The risk increases when they are away from their own home and on holiday as they are less familiar with the dangers present in that environment. And the risk increases again if they are left unattended. '

Gerry once said ''if she had an accident in the flat - how would that be our fault?''

' It would be your fault because you weren't there. '

yet still no one has come up  with an accident that would have caused instant death making abduction far more likely

quite simply...abductions happen...children fallinig off sofa and dying instantly does not

[stephen25000]

yet still no one has come up  with an accident that would have caused instant death making abduction far more likely

You should really keep up, accidents can have delayed effects.

Second, what data are you using to make that statement ?

[Mr Gray]

You should really keep up, accidents can have delayed effects.

Second, what data are you using to make that statement ?

weve been through all this before.....subdural haematoma

data..there are no reports from instant deaths from falling off a sofa

[slartibartfast]

weve been through all this before.....subdural haematoma

data..there are no reports from instant deaths from falling off a sofa

If you could actually find information about circumstances surrounding deaths then the data may tell a different story. The data currently available to the public is at too high a level to be able to make such a bald statement.

[Lace]

Madeleine didn't fall from the balcony did she?

Gerry made that comment in reference to Amaral's climbing on the sofa accident.

Children can have an accident when the parents are not there,  eg if they are asleep in bed,   down the garden,  sitting watching tv downstairs when the child is upstairs.

All this means nothing,   the McCann's could not have known an abductor would take Madeleine from her bed,  there was no 'intent'   so it is pointless dragging up every article found in newspapers telling the story of what has happened to other children.

[stephen25000]

Madeleine didn't fall from the balcony did she?

Gerry made that comment in reference to Amaral's climbing on the sofa accident.

Children can have an accident when the parents are not there,  eg if they are asleep in bed,   down the garden,  sitting watching tv downstairs when the child is upstairs.

All this means nothing,   the McCann's could not have known an abductor would take Madeleine from her bed,  there was no 'intent'   so it is pointless dragging up every article found in newspapers telling the story of what has happened to other children.

What abductor ???

[Mr Gray]

If you could actually find information about circumstances surrounding deaths then the data may tell a different story. The data currently available to the public is at too high a level to be able to make such a bald statement.

there are plenty of bold statements on here....it is a  bold statement to say maddie could have died in an accident with no data to show what sort of accident...the nspcc website gives the most usual causes of accidental death

if we look at what we know via newspaper reports of accidents...no accidental fall inside a house has ever produced near instant death...
yet there are reports of abduction...making abduction more likely

[G-Unit]

Madeleine didn't fall from the balcony did she?

Gerry made that comment in reference to Amaral's climbing on the sofa accident.

Children can have an accident when the parents are not there,  eg if they are asleep in bed,   down the garden,  sitting watching tv downstairs when the child is upstairs.

All this means nothing,   the McCann's could not have known an abductor would take Madeleine from her bed,  there was no 'intent'   so it is pointless dragging up every article found in newspapers telling the story of what has happened to other children.

How do you know Madeleine didn't fall from the balcony? If your child fell and hurt itself when you left it alone in a holiday apartment would you say 'It wasn't my fault'? Would you take no responsibility at all? Leaving children alone is asking for trouble. Parents who leave their children alone and go out probably don't intend the child to come to harm, but they still get into trouble for it in the UK. That's because it's irresponsible to do it, and parents are expected to realise that children left alone can come to harm. Otherwise the authorities wouldn't prosecute parents who do it. Mentioning what happened to other children is just as relevant as the countless articles mentioning how unreliable cadaver dogs are.

[stephen25000]

there are plenty of bold statements on here....it is a  bold statement to say maddie could have died in an accident with no data to show what sort of accident...the nspcc website gives the most usual causes of accidental death

if we look at what we know via newspaper reports of accidents...no accidental fall inside a house has ever produced near instant death...
yet there are reports of abduction...making abduction more likely

So you have no proof such a death hasn't happened ?

Merely because abductions happen, doesn't mean it's more likely in this case.