hibs.net Messageboard

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 163 of 163
  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As with most things there are vile trolls on both sides of the argument. For all the abuse that has gone one way, I can balance up with the fact they tried to ruin Amaral. He was so destitute that an appeal on his case had to be paid for by crowd funding.

    It appears three of their friends tried to frame Murat. Several innocent Portuguese men, including one with mental health issues, have been pilloried at their behest.

    Then there was the suicide of Brenda Leyland. A critic hunted down by Sky on their behalf, because they called her a troll.

    They are masters at playing the victim card. They had the cheek to appear at the press complaints hearing to complain about their unfair treatment at the hands of the media!

    It is unfair, cruel and deviant to even ask why the accounts they gave the police don't hold water.

    They haven't managed to cover anything up. Operation Grange enigmatically says the search has been focussed on "two suspects". The Portuguese Supreme court has said they have not been cleared of anything.

    It was they who brought class into it early on. Their spokesman played up the respectable middle class doctor image from the get go.

    I can't see how you can't see the difference between how Shannon Matthews was covered compared to Madeleine McCann.

    I agree class shouldn't come into it, but a lot of people have prejudices. For example, the Xenophobia trotted out in the early days was disgusting. Bear in mind much of what appeared in the press was provided by their press office.

    Amaral mused, "who takes a press officer to a police interview." A lawyer yes, but why the need to have a spin doctor to show you in a good light, if you've done nothing wrong?
    When the Matthews 'kidnapping' occurred it was the main national news story. It could not have had more substantial coverage. The fact she was found only a couple of weeks later rather lessened its newsworthiness, especially once it became known that the whole thing was an ill thought-out rather pitiful ruse to try and cash in on the McCann case. The two cases are simply incomparable.

    What was sad about the Matthews 'kidnapping' was that it played into the hands of those looking down their nose at those involved as thick, working class nobodies. The fault for that though lies with the perpetrators, not the media.

    As somebody else has said, if you reckon the McCanns are guilty of something untoward that's entirely up to you. It's the claims of many who claim they're seeking 'justice for Madeleine' that I find hard to stomach though, because what they're really seeking is punishment for a couple who they perceive to be too privileged. Concern for the child at the heart of all this seems in short supply among those determined to see the McCanns take a fall.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #152
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    37,643
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The police investigation was cut short by their return to the UK, Matty. Despite what they would have us believe, they have not been cleared.

    Likewise their is no evidence of an abduction, as the story put forward by the parents did not hold any water. It was full of holes and aspect such as constructing a narrative about a jemmied window, and then being show that it was a crock, are puzzling to say the least.

    You say that numerous police agencies have looked at it. Can I remind you, they still are?

    You are right to say the police could not build a case. The official line is it is not clear what crime was committed. All bets are still on.

    Take DNA evidence, even the Netflix thing has one of their friends on saying that advances in DNA testing could solve the case. Why DNA, what would it have to do with the bodily matter (we aren't allowed to say blood) collected from the apartment.

    Much as they would like us to believe, they are still very much in the frame.

    Time will tell. Personally, I don't think they will ever be charged. I think too many people have reputations to protect now - from the people involved, to the politicians and journalists that spoke for them, to the Home Secretaries who have spent 12 million pounds of public money on Operation Grange, and have nothing to show for it.

    People need to do their own research, they need to realise that much of what comes into the media is fed by the McCann press office. They should know the efforts the McCanns have gone to in order to silence critics. They have to set aside what they would or wouldn't do, and try to get beyond this idea that this is a normal couple who made a bad mistake.

    The way they have behaved since the disappearance, in terms of trying to find their missing daughter is wealth worth considering.
    Even allowing for the case being ongoing - it's how many years now? 12?

    So far they've not been able to build a case sufficient to charge the 2 people they named as suspects.

    DNA testing has advanced in the 12 years, still nothing to support the theory .

    That they can't prove an abduction took place does not implicate the McCanns, it just means that they can't say for certain what happened and I would imagine it's harder to disprove an abduction theory than it is to disprove the murder theory.

    The fact that they still haven't been able to prove a murder theory speaks volumes.

  4. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Even allowing for the case being ongoing - it's how many years now? 12?

    Constantly being held up as evidence of their innocence, but it isn't. Coded messages from the head of the PJ in Portugal, hint at political involvement. "The case will be solved when the will of the two countries want it."


    So far they've not been able to build a case sufficient to charge the 2 people they named as suspects.

    Or have they? See above. Incidentally they have never been made suspects, merely persons of interest. It has been made clear that they are by no means off the hook.

    DNA testing has advanced in the 12 years, still nothing to support the theory .

    Not something I can comment on with any confidence. 15 out of 20 markers were consistent with Maddie's DNA, not admissible as evidence in Portugal, but it is in other countries. A US expert (I don't know how valid that term is for this case) says he would analyse the data for free. Scotland Yard said, "no, out labs here are the best". Of course the case didn't happen in Scotland Yard's jurisdiction, so who knows?

    That they can't prove an abduction took place does not implicate the McCanns, it just means that they can't say for certain what happened and I would imagine it's harder to disprove an abduction theory than it is to disprove the murder theory.

    An explanation was offered about how the abduction would have happened - the story was a crock. What does that lead you to wonder? For me, why did you make up that story?

    The fact that they still haven't been able to prove a murder theory speaks volumes.

    I think you've made this point already. I don't think anybody has said murder, other than tin hat wearers on the internet. Accidental death is a strong possibilty given the cadaver dog alerts, and the attempt to trick the police.

    I always raise an eyebrow when i hear Gerry repeating the night before going to the PJ for questioning as an Arguido. "They haven't got anything on us", not "we didn't do it." I think he's quite an odd, but of course it doesn't prove anything.

    Likewise the vehement way he and Kate made a point of it not being anything to do with them, "that's preposterous why would we?" Eh, could it be because you would be in deep trouble if you were found to have played a part?

  5. #154
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    37,643
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I always raise an eyebrow when i hear Gerry repeating the night before going to the PJ for questioning as an Arguido. "They haven't got anything on us", not "we didn't do it." I think he's quite an odd, but of course it doesn't prove anything.

    Likewise the vehement way he and Kate made a point of it not being anything to do with them, "that's preposterous why would we?" Eh, could it be because you would be in deep trouble if you were found to have played a part?
    They haven't got a case. Politicly it's in everyone's interest to bring it to a conclusion, and if it's a conviction for the McCanns then even more so, as it vindicates the Portugese police and shows that the British police as a cooperative and expert force.

    Your suggestion is that there are political moves to protect two child murderers and assist in the cover up of the most serious type of crime.

    The analysis of what has been said and whether that made them more or less guilty has no credibility.

  6. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by G B Young View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    When the Matthews 'kidnapping' occurred it was the main national news story. It could not have had more substantial coverage. The fact she was found only a couple of weeks later rather lessened its newsworthiness, especially once it became known that the whole thing was an ill thought-out rather pitiful ruse to try and cash in on the McCann case. The two cases are simply incomparable.


    What was sad about the Matthews 'kidnapping' was that it played into the hands of those looking down their nose at those involved as thick, working class nobodies. The fault for that though lies with the perpetrators, not the media.

    As somebody else has said, if you reckon the McCanns are guilty of something untoward that's entirely up to you. It's the claims of many who claim they're seeking 'justice for Madeleine' that I find hard to stomach though, because what they're really seeking is punishment for a couple who they perceive to be too privileged. Concern for the child at the heart of all this seems in short supply among those determined to see the McCanns take a fall.
    Excellent points sir. Yes, I agree the whole Justice for Madeleine thing does reek of hypocrisy. I think there are a lot of people out there though that don't like to see guilty people walk free.

    I don't agree with the jealousy argument though, particularly as it is a central part of the spin put out by their press office. Personally, I wouldn't have wanted the McCanns life for anything, either before or after the abduction.

    However, I don't like smug and arrogant people, whatever their social standing. Having read detailed accounts of their behaviour in Portugal, and their attitude towards people who were there to help them, I find them very hard to warm to.

    I believe that they, in collusion with their friends tried to frame an innocent man, Robert Murat. They made no secret of wanting to ruin Goncalo Amaral, and by extension his family. Attack on one of their critics, Barbara Leyland, that contributed to her suicide, bears all the hallmarks of their press office.

    A Panorama documentary in which they had a big say saw a reporter doorstep a man with mental health issues in the streets of Praia da Luz, and ask him if he abducted Maddie. They then went to another "suspect" and door stepped him at his place of work. He lost his job.

    With respect, if you believe that they have covered something up, you would comment that their concern for the child has been even less. I believe there is hypocrisy on both sides, but which hypocrisy is worse - those who feign a concern for the child, or those who may well be covering something up?

  7. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They haven't got a case. Politicly it's in everyone's interest to bring it to a conclusion, and if it's a conviction for the McCanns then even more so, as it vindicates the Portugese police and shows that the British police as a cooperative and expert force.

    Your suggestion is that there are political moves to protect two child murderers and assist in the cover up of the most serious type of crime.

    The analysis of what has been said and whether that made them more or less guilty has no credibility.
    Wait a minute, I am not calling them child murderers. Where did that come from?

    It has the credibility of a hypothesis. It is something that is worth exploring. Hate to come back to it, but a reconstruction, and honest answers from the people involved might have helped.

    As for the politics, it would be nave to think that politics didn't come into it, and it would be equally nave to think that the facts will come out any time soon. Look at things like Hillsboro, the Yorkshire Ripper, historic child abuse. It takes many years, and usually the deaths of key figures before what is suspected is proved.

    Meantime, we have a couple and their friends, who were shown to have made up a story about how somebody broke into their holiday apartment, and stole their child, whilst there was a constant procession of parents going back and forward to check on them.

    When exclude what is impossible you get what happened. All bets are on.

  8. #157
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    37,643
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wait a minute, I am not calling them child murderers. Where did that come from?

    It has the credibility of a hypothesis. It is something that is worth exploring. Hate to come back to it, but a reconstruction, and honest answers from the people involved might have helped.

    As for the politics, it would be nave to think that politics didn't come into it, and it would be equally nave to think that the facts will come out any time soon. Look at things like Hillsboro, the Yorkshire Ripper, historic child abuse. It takes many years, and usually the deaths of key figures before what is suspected is proved.

    Meantime, we have a couple and their friends, who were shown to have made up a story about how somebody broke into their holiday apartment, and stole their child, whilst there was a constant procession of parents going back and forward to check on them.

    When exclude what is impossible you get what happened. All bets are on.
    Apologies, you didn't say they were murderers.

  9. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Apologies, you didn't say they were murderers.
    Thanks, I'll let you off this time.

    There are those that do, I prefer to concentrate on the Amaral theory, which is based on the evidence collected. The people that think the parents took the kid there to kill her and lunatics.

  10. #159
    Private Members Prediction League Winner Hibrandenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brandenburg
    Posts
    10,619
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Had she already answered the questions in earlier statements?

    Presumably the Police would have taken most of those details early on in the investigation, in fact probably as early as when they first arrived at the scene and were establishing what happened.
    Indeed. Maybe they felt that they themselves were becoming the centre of the investigation and stopped answering questions to avoid falsely incriminating themselves.

    The lack of enough evidence to build a case against them means at least in my eyes they are innocent of everything other that negligence. The pressure on the Portuguese police to get a result must have been immense and I'm certain they would have prosecuted if they thought they had the slightest chance of a conviction.

  11. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Indeed. Maybe they felt that they themselves were becoming the centre of the investigation and stopped answering questions to avoid falsely incriminating themselves.

    The lack of enough evidence to build a case against them means at least in my eyes they are innocent of everything other that negligence. The pressure on the Portuguese police to get a result must have been immense and I'm certain they would have prosecuted if they thought they had the slightest chance of a conviction.
    I think they had already incriminated themselves by the inconsistencies in their story, particularly the implausible account of how the abductor got in and out, and the apparent plot to frame someone else. Whether they would have falsely incriminated themselves, or provided evidence of something we they did, we will never know, as they were allowed to return to the UK.

    That was the part I could not understand at the time, why were they allowed to return home when the case was still live, and why have they never been recalled? Maybe it's easiest for everyone to pretend nothing happened, hence the PJ cop out of "there have been no charges, as we don't know what crime was committed."

    Of course they are innocent, as is anyone who hasn't been convicted. As for negligence, they wouldn't see it that way, and have been at pains to show that they did nothing wrong.

  12. #161
    Coaching Staff One Day Soon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In hope
    Age
    54
    Posts
    8,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It would be for most parents, They are an odd couple though and come out with clumsy statements like "it was like going into the red on a student loan."

    Then there is the way they devoted so much time to suing Goncalo Amaral. They seemed more interested in the fact that their feelings had been hurt by him, than looking for their daughter.

    Although they said the Madeleine fund would be "transparent", no accounts are available. It is not possible to say with certainty that funds donated for the search have been spent on legal fees to protect their reputation.

    Regardless of his hurt, Gerry has been able to progress to the position of Professor. That takes an extraordinary person in my book.

    If I had lost a child I think life would end there for me. But Gerry has been able to grit his teeth, sue the detective, and rise to a high position in medicine.

    As well as all that, he has been leaving "no stone unturned" in the search for Madeleine. A remarkable, almost super human feat in my book.

    Their lawyers have also been busy trying to shut down discussion on the internet. Here's an example.

    Gerry was able to write a daily blog during the first year of the mystery. However, after a while people were using it to point out inconsistencies. He took the blog down.

    However one of the fanatics had archived the blog and published them on another site. Carter Ruck has instructed the host (?) to take the site down as it is "breach of copyright"

    I don't understand that behaviour. At best, they are clumsy in their actions as they keep bringing suspicion on themselves. Surely any publicity is good publicity, and what do innocent people have to fear from people talking the case through?

    People like you doing exactly what you are doing on this thread, seeking ways to demonstrate their culpability?

    If my daughter was missing in these circumstances I would be wracked with guilt about what I could have done more or differently to prevent it. The only thing that could make worse the pain of loss, the fear for her and the guilt of having let my child and my family down would be the ceaseless, prurient intervention of conspiracy theorists wanting to convict me for the loss or murder of my own child.

    So yes, I might well remove my blog if it appeared it was being used to fuel malign speculation. Particularly since my remaining children will be having to grow up dealing with all this poison.

  13. #162
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,831
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It would be for most parents, They are an odd couple though and come out with clumsy statements like "it was like going into the red on a student loan."

    Then there is the way they devoted so much time to suing Goncalo Amaral. They seemed more interested in the fact that their feelings had been hurt by him, than looking for their daughter.

    Although they said the Madeleine fund would be "transparent", no accounts are available. It is not possible to say with certainty that funds donated for the search have been spent on legal fees to protect their reputation.

    Regardless of his hurt, Gerry has been able to progress to the position of Professor. That takes an extraordinary person in my book.

    If I had lost a child I think life would end there for me. But Gerry has been able to grit his teeth, sue the detective, and rise to a high position in medicine.

    As well as all that, he has been leaving "no stone unturned" in the search for Madeleine. A remarkable, almost super human feat in my book.

    Their lawyers have also been busy trying to shut down discussion on the internet. Here's an example.

    Gerry was able to write a daily blog during the first year of the mystery. However, after a while people were using it to point out inconsistencies. He took the blog down.

    However one of the fanatics had archived the blog and published them on another site. Carter Ruck has instructed the host (?) to take the site down as it is "breach of copyright"

    I don't understand that behaviour. At best, they are clumsy in their actions as they keep bringing suspicion on themselves. Surely any publicity is good publicity, and what do innocent people have to fear from people talking the case through?
    Im not sure if you are aware of the inconsistencies in your reflections on here ..at one point on this thread you were questioning the inclusion of a PR person in their meetings as a sinister type of behaviour..yet on this thread you are questioning them taking down their blog because surely any publicity is good publicity ..I see little, if any, devils advocate behaviour in your analysis ...only a steady, sometimes confused logic

  14. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I’m not sure if you are aware of the inconsistencies in your reflections on here ..at one point on this thread you were questioning the inclusion of a PR person in their meetings as a sinister type of behaviour..yet on this thread you are questioning them taking down their blog because “surely any publicity is good publicity “..I see little, if any, devils advocate behaviour in your analysis ...only a steady, sometimes confused logic
    That's my default setting mate, and probably a by product of talking about this too much.

    I am actually questioning their inconsistency to publicity. Aware enough of its power to keep the case to the fore, but not if the publicity is bad.

    My feeling is that Gerry just acted suspiciously in wanting something withdrawn that would have people talking about the case.

    I was also flagging up a mysterious attitude to who is allowed to share information that he considered helpful to him at one point. They used breach of copyright as the reason.

    Taking a spin doctor to your police interview still snacks of wanting to manipulate the story that went out to the media. After all, there were quite a few newspapers there, not to mention TV stations. If you anticipated good news, why the need to spin it. I suspect they thought they were about to be arrested and wanted to bring pressure on politicians back home to fight their corner, by portraying themselves as victims of a terrible mistake.

    So, for me any publicity is good publicity. For Team McCann the only publicity they want is what they consider good for them. Makes a bit of a mockery of their desire to keep the story to the forefront as much as possible.

    The only way I was playing Devil's Advocate, was in accepting their version of the story, ie there was an abduction. I am questioning their behaviour from that point and trying to show an inconsistency with people who are desperately searching for their child. They have appeared much more concerned about persuading the public that the child's disappearance was no fault of theirs, and what they have done to search for her (dodgy private eyes, hired by Kennedy) has been an unmitigated disaster.
    Last edited by Cataplana; Yesterday at 09:33 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved