The disappearance of Madeleine McCann

[Hibeesmad]

Just started watching the documentary on Netflix.

Such a sad but interesting story. I hope we find out the truth of what happened one day.

FWIW, I think the parents know a lot more than they make out to believe.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Just started watching the documentary on Netflix.

Such a sad but interesting story. I hope we find out the truth of what happened one day.

FWIW, I think the parents know a lot more than they make out to believe.

I won't watch it.
A child was abducted,sadly.
It's only a forever story because the child wasn't beside her parents. I can't even begin to think what they are still going through. And the hate through social media. It's so sad.

[Hibbyradge]

I won't watch it.
A child was abducted,sadly.
It's only a forever story because the child wasn't beside her parents. I can't even begin to think what they are still going through. And the hate through social media. It's so sad.

Likewise. I've no desire to immerse myself in that terrible and very sad story.

I've seen a few people suggest that the parents were involved or know more than they're letting on, but I see no reason to believe that.

It's like there's a need to blame someone, it a need for an answer to make sense of it. If they weren't middle class and intelligent, those suspicions wouldn't have been aroused. It's strange.

A bit like religion, if I may.

[Allant1981]

Likewise. I've no desire to immerse myself in that terrible and very sad story.

I've seen a few people suggest that the parents were involved or know more than they're letting on, but I see no reason to believe that.

It's like there's a need to blame someone, it a need for an answer to make sense of it. If they weren't middle class and intelligent, those suspicions wouldn't have been aroused. It's strange.

A bit like religion, if I may.

They cant be that intelligent, they left 3 kids over 60 yards away unattended rather than using the nanny service, they wouldn't answer almost all questions relating to her disappearance so of course people will think they were involved, the investigators thought they were involved, there is a lot more to this than someone kidnapping a child. Hopefully one day the poor wee thing is found but I highly doubt it now

[Moulin Yarns]

Won't watch but how she went missing was brought to mind a few weeks ago when my niece's son, aged 6 was staying with his dad for a weekend and he woke up, couldn't find his dad, put his coat and shoes on and walked out of the house. He was found a mile away by a taxi driver who took him to the police. His father was either not in the house or was too drunk to be able to care.

Madeline might have done the same and been taken by someone away from the hotel.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Won't watch but how she went missing was brought to mind a few weeks ago when my niece's son, aged 6 was staying with his dad for a weekend and he woke up, couldn't find his dad, put his coat and shoes on and walked out of the house. He was found a mile away by a taxi driver who took him to the police. His father was either not in the house or was too drunk to be able to care.

That's horrible, poor wee boy 😢

[Pretty Boy]

I'm not sure why any discussion about the McCanns actions creates such a defensive attitude. Why is watching this show and discussing it any different from the Abducted In Plain Sight programme about which almost everyone seemed to have a comment and child abuse became the basis for hundred of 'hillarious' memes.

Ultimately the person or persons who took Madeleine McCann are wholly responsible for their actions. However I do find the way the McCanns have managed the narrative fascinating. Any comment on their actions that night at all is almost immediately shut down very forcefully and the 1 or 2 journalists who dared step out of line were hounded relentlessly.

The events of the evening are all relevant to the sad outcome but large parts of the timeline are essentially off the table when it comes to considering the case as a whole.

[Dinkydoo]

They cant be that intelligent, they left 3 kids over 60 yards away unattended rather than using the nanny service, they wouldn't answer almost all questions relating to her disappearance so of course people will think they were involved, the investigators thought they were involved, there is a lot more to this than someone kidnapping a child. Hopefully one day the poor wee thing is found but I highly doubt it now

The nanny service probably cost a fortune. Weren't the other families the McCann's were dining with also leaving their kids unattended, almost like they all agreed that it makes no sense for us all to fork out for this, let's just all take turns on rotation to go check up on them. That's how I interpereted it anyway.

I've swung between thinking they're definitely involved in foul-play to now being quite sure that she was just abducted.

My reasons for this are:-

The DNA found in the car wasn't an exact match, we have no point of reference for the dog hits on the rental car and apartment, the local police were proven to be lazy so and so's and were obviously gunning for the McCann's from the point in which finding Maddy became improbable, later they were linked to allegations of torture and false confessions in another child abduction case and that part of Portugal had an association to paedo networks.

The McCanns couldn't remember or at least fudged the exact details of the night of the disappearance, probably because they were relatively pished and had done the same thing on a number of occassions prior to that night. They could also have been trying to obfuscate things to avoid a negligence charge and the resulting guilt would have been quite overwhelming.

They'd have had to have been crime scene clean-up masterminds and acting pro's in order to not slip up with that amount of media and local police pressure.

[Hibeesmad]

The nanny service probably cost a fortune. Weren't the other families the McCann's were dining with also leaving their kids unattended, almost like they all agreed that it makes no sense for us all to fork out for this, let's just all take turns on rotation to go check up on them. That's how I interpereted it anyway.

I've swung between thinking they're definitely involved in foul-play to now being quite sure that she was just abducted.

My reasons for this are:-

The DNA found in the car wasn't an exact match, we have no point of reference for the dog hits on the rental car and apartment, the local police were proven to be lazy so and so's and were obviously gunning for the McCann's from the point in which finding Maddy became improbable, later they were linked to allegations of torture and false confessions in another child abduction case and that part of Portugal had an association to paedo networks.

The McCanns couldn't remember or at least fudged the exact details of the night of the disappearance, probably because they were relatively pished and had done the same thing on a number of occassions prior to that night. They could also have been trying to obfuscate things to avoid a negligence charge and the resulting guilt would have been quite overwhelming.

They'd have had to have been crime scene clean-up masterminds and acting pro's in order to not slip up with that amount of media and local police pressure.

I don't understand why they left their door unlocked.

[overdrive]

I'm not sure why any discussion about the McCanns actions creates such a defensive attitude. Why is watching this show and discussing it any different from the Abducted In Plain Sight programme about which almost everyone seemed to have a comment and child abuse became the basis for hundred of 'hillarious' memes.

Ultimately the person or persons who took Madeleine McCann are wholly responsible for their actions. However I do find the way the McCanns have managed the narrative fascinating. Any comment on their actions that night at all is almost immediately shut down very forcefully and the 1 or 2 journalists who dared step out of line were hounded relentlessly.

The events of the evening are all relevant to the sad outcome but large parts of the timeline are essentially off the table when it comes to considering the case as a whole.

Don’t make the mistake I did and voice that opinion to anyone who knows the McCanns. A friends’s now husband went ape at me for (a) playing the Maddy McCann card in Cards Against Humanity and (b) pretty much stating what you said in that post. I didn’t realise his brother was good friends with Gerry.

TBF, it’s not Gerry I’m suspicious of out of the two.

[adhibs]

Posted similar on the best TV thread, but it gets very dark after episode 4 and is pretty uncomfortable viewing at times. The possible kidnap by paedophile order motive has been around from the beginning, but the documentary delving into it really added disturbing context to it. As Jim Gable even mentions in one of the later episodes, it's subject where the media generally shields their audiences from in fear of losing them.

A couple individuals come out of it appearing very bad. As does wider society when they look at the press reporting and social media interactions.

[adhibs]

I don't understand why they left their door unlocked.

I found that realy strange too. Maybe so as checks could be done by friends, but surely a locked door is a better form of safety.

[overdrive]

I’ve only seen the first few episodes, so I don’t know if more is said about him but I feel quite sorry for Robert Murat and for once I find myself agreeing with the usually deplorable Kelvin McKenzie (who no doubt has accused people in a similar fashion numerous times during his career!)

[GlesgaeHibby]

Likewise. I've no desire to immerse myself in that terrible and very sad story.

I've seen a few people suggest that the parents were involved or know more than they're letting on, but I see no reason to believe that.

It's like there's a need to blame someone, it a need for an answer to make sense of it. If they weren't middle class and intelligent, those suspicions wouldn't have been aroused. It's strange.

A bit like religion, if I may.

If they weren't middle class they'd have been arrested for neglect.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

I am suspicious of the way that they manage news both in and out. Looks more PR and spin than factual.

[Allant1981]

The nanny service probably cost a fortune. Weren't the other families the McCann's were dining with also leaving their kids unattended, almost like they all agreed that it makes no sense for us all to fork out for this, let's just all take turns on rotation to go check up on them. That's how I interpereted it anyway.

I've swung between thinking they're definitely involved in foul-play to now being quite sure that she was just abducted.

My reasons for this are:-

The DNA found in the car wasn't an exact match, we have no point of reference for the dog hits on the rental car and apartment, the local police were proven to be lazy so and so's and were obviously gunning for the McCann's from the point in which finding Maddy became improbable, later they were linked to allegations of torture and false confessions in another child abduction case and that part of Portugal had an association to paedo networks.

The McCanns couldn't remember or at least fudged the exact details of the night of the disappearance, probably because they were relatively pished and had done the same thing on a number of occassions prior to that night. They could also have been trying to obfuscate things to avoid a negligence charge and the resulting guilt would have been quite overwhelming.

They'd have had to have been crime scene clean-up masterminds and acting pro's in order to not slip up with that amount of media and local police pressure.

I worked in a 5 star hotel and the child minding service wasnt that expensive there so guessing it wouldn't have been that expensive, plus one of them is a GP and the other a consultant so earn very very good money, and yes it seems like they all do e this which is even more worrying that more than one family were so negligent towards what should be the most important things in their lives

I still believe they had something to do with it, something just doesn't sit right that a mother would not answer all those questions regarding that night, why leave doors unlocked when you cant see the door? If they came out and answered all these questions they might not seem so guilty but maybe that's just me. If they done what they done in this country they would have the social work at their door asking questions,Hopefully one day the little lass turns up safe but not looking likely

[Besties Debut]

Some people are desperate for Kate and Gerry McCann to be responsible for this. Is it because they are educated and middle class and the folk who are accusing them are not? Two parents have gone through the I can imagine indescribable pain of losing their kid. They also have to contend with the online trolls, paranoid lunatics and conspiracy nutjobs who claim they were responsible....maybe responsible for leaving her on her own but some of the claims that they are involved in a worldwide child trafficking ring, they murdered her, sold her to Freemasonic aliens are indicative of how much the internet has corrupted peoples minds.

[Jim44]

I don't understand why they left their door unlocked.

Possibly to avoid the tragedy of the kids being locked in the building in the event of emergency, such as fire. Then again they shouldn’t have been left in the first place.

[Hibeesmad]

Brian Kennedy, a multi millionaire from Edinburgh, plays a big part in the documentary donating his time and money to help the search for the wee girl. Wasn't he linked with potentially buying Hibs at one point?

[EH6 Hibby]

Just finished watching, what a rollercoaster. I started off convinced they had killed her, I thought it had probably been an accident but they definitely had something to do with it. I now don’t know what to think. I’m more leaning towards them being innocent of everything except leaving the kids unattended.

[calumhibee1]

Just finished watching, what a rollercoaster. I started off convinced they had killed her, I thought it had probably been an accident but they definitely had something to do with it. I now don’t know what to think. I’m more leaning towards them being innocent of everything except leaving the kids unattended.

I'm similar. I had them down as having done it, most likely by accident and then panicking and orchestrating a cover up. I expected to watch this and be absolutely certain that they had done it afterwards.

After watching it however, like you, I don't have a clue what to think. I'm probably still ever so slightly to the "they did something untoward" side but only just and no more. I also reckon the kidnapped-to-order suggestion is absolutely possible.

Goncalo Amaral didn't come across well at all IMO. And Brian Kennedys laddie seems like an absolute tadger. Almost like he enjoyed attempting to be a hero.

[EH6 Hibby]

I'm similar. I had them down as having done it, most likely by accident and then panicking and orchestrating a cover up. I expected to watch this and be absolutely certain that they had done it afterwards.

After watching it however, like you, I don't have a clue what to think. I'm probably still ever so slightly to the "they did something untoward" side but only just and no more. I also reckon the kidnapped-to-order suggestion is absolutely possible.

Goncalo Amaral didn't come across well at all IMO. And Brian Kennedys laddie seems like an absolute tadger. Almost like he enjoyed attempting to be a hero.

I thought the first investigator had the right idea of trying to get in with the kind of people who would have been involved with abducting kids to order, who knows what he might have found if that other company hadn’t promised the earth to the McCanns.

I agree about Kennedy’s son, loved being involved in the whole thing and trying to be a hero. Also Kennedy continually calling her Madeleen really irritated me, thought his intentions were good though.

[Moulin Yarns]

Did anyone watch the Cry recently. Couple who's baby apparently went missing from the car. Jenna Coleman starred.

I saw possible parallel.

[Billy Whizz]

After the disappearance of Maddy, my wife said she’d never go on holiday to Portugal
Even to this day I can’t convince her to go

[overdrive]

Brian Kennedy, a multi millionaire from Edinburgh, plays a big part in the documentary donating his time and money to help the search for the wee girl. Wasn't he linked with potentially buying Hibs at one point?

The way he pronounces Madeleine’s name really gets on my nerves.

[overdrive]

I thought the first investigator had the right idea of trying to get in with the kind of people who would have been involved with abducting kids to order, who knows what he might have found if that other company hadn’t promised the earth to the McCanns.

I agree about Kennedy’s son, loved being involved in the whole thing and trying to be a hero. Also Kennedy continually calling her Madeleen really irritated me, thought his intentions were good though.

Unfortunately, I can’t help but think of Ken Stott’s character in The Missing when seeing Kennedy and his son in the series. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Kennedy is up to anything dodgy like the jambo fud’s character but I guess it is the rich Edinburgh businessman funding the parents’ efforts without it being obvious why they are doing it parallel.

I do wonder if The Missing may have got the idea for the character (minus the paedo part) from Kennedy’s involvement in the McCann case. Totally bizarre that they went up into the Atlas Mountains to look for her without professional guidance.

Was he not considered to be a dodgy character when he was trying to buy us and then Rangers? Also pretty much ruined Stockport County IIRC.

[MrRobot]

Likewise. I've no desire to immerse myself in that terrible and very sad story.

I've seen a few people suggest that the parents were involved or know more than they're letting on, but I see no reason to believe that.

It's like there's a need to blame someone, it a need for an answer to make sense of it. If they weren't middle class and intelligent, those suspicions wouldn't have been aroused. It's strange.

A bit like religion, if I may.

The parents. Whether they killed her, sold her or the story they claim of her being abducted, they are the ones that are ultimately responsibile for whatever has happened through their inexcusable negligence.

[heretoday]

It's time to end this saga. It should have ended years ago.

[IWasThere2016]

Just started watching the documentary on Netflix.

Such a sad but interesting story. I hope we find out the truth of what happened one day.

FWIW, I think the parents know a lot more than they make out to believe.

I thought it was far too long, and inconclusive obviously.

I wish I hadn't bothered.

I remain amazed and angry the McCanns and chums weren't prosecuted. All adults present were guilty of neglect. The McCanns - moreover Madeline - were the unlucky ones.

Sadly, I think the child is dead.

[Hibeesmad]

I thought it was far too long, and inconclusive obviously.

I wish I hadn't bothered.

I remain amazed and angry the McCanns and chums weren't prosecuted. All adults present were guilty of neglect. The McCanns - moreover Madeline - were the unlucky ones.

Sadly, I think the child is dead.

I agree.

If a couple from Leith had left their young twins and 3 year old daughter alone in their home with the door unlocked whilst they went for a meal and drinks with friends then they would no doubt be charged.

[Pretty Boy]

I agree.

If a couple from Leith had left their young twins and 3 year old daughter alone in their home with the door unlocked whilst they went for a meal and drinks with friends then they would no doubt be charged.

I agree to an extent. As I said above I find it quite fascinating the way their decision, which played a part in starting the whole chain of events, is effectively whitewashed in the mainstream narrative. I was baffled by their decision before I had a child and now I have a daughter close to the same age Madeleine was at the time I find it even more baffling.

However the parents have have paid a huge price for that decision, whether it was a one off or habitual. I don't really see what sentence could be passed on them that would be worse than what they have already suffered. They have to live with the consequences of their judgement for the rest of their lives. Equally I'm not sure if there is a public interest to be served in prosecuting them. What would it achieve beyond potentially seeing 2 other children removed from their parents care?

The parents made a mistake that I find inexplicable but ultimately whoever took Madeleine is responsible for what happened to her. I think in the absence of any clarity on what happened the need to blame someone has landed at the parents door in some peoples eyes. If there is an acceptance they had nothing to do with the 'abduction' and whatever followed then I think there needs to be an acknowledgement that they made a poor decision, presented an opportunity for someone to potentially harm their daughter but someone else is ultimately responsible for the final outcome.

[matty_f]

I agree to an extent. As I said above I find it quite fascinating the way their decision, which played a part in starting the whole chain of events, is effectively whitewashed in the mainstream narrative. I was baffled by their decision before I had a child and now I have a daughter close to the same age Madeleine was at the time I find it even more baffling.

However the parents have have paid a huge price for that decision, whether it was a one off or habitual. I don't really see what sentence could be passed on them that would be worse than what they have already suffered. They have to live with the consequences of their judgement for the rest of their lives. Equally I'm not sure if there is a public interest to be served in prosecuting them. What would it achieve beyond potentially seeing 2 other children removed from their parents care?

The parents made a mistake that I find inexplicable but ultimately whoever took Madeleine is responsible for what happened to her. I think in the absence of any clarity on what happened the need to blame someone has landed at the parents door in some peoples eyes. If there is an acceptance they had nothing to do with the 'abduction' and whatever followed then I think there needs to be an acknowledgement that they made a poor decision, presented an opportunity for someone to potentially harm their daughter but someone else is ultimately responsible for the final outcome.

I think what they did was far, far more commonplace than you'd think nowadays. In many ways, Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a game-changer in how folk viewed leaving their kids.

The nanny service that was available was essentially the same as what the parents were doing - regular, routine checks on the kids rather than an adult sitting in with them.

I remember pre-Madeleine McCann having a weekend with the wife and my son, who at that time was a baby, at the Roxburghe hotel (which IIRC is in the Borders), I might have the hotel wrong but it's not that relevant anyway.

We were staying in an outer building adjacent to the hotel, or off the main hotel at least, and because Josh was such a nightmare for sleeping we couldn't get him settled (our plan was to take him with us in his pram, and eat while he slept in the dining room beside us).

As he was awake, we asked the receptionist if it was ok to order our meal as room service - we didn't want Josh crying while folk were eating their meals. The receptionist offered to check in on him every now and again to let us go in for the meal. We politely refused and took the meal to the room, but it was clearly not frowned upon to use a service like that.

In which case, you can see why a group of adults who were happy to take turns to effectively perform the nanny service wouldn't think it was a big deal, and while it's a big "how could you?!" nowadays, back then I think loads of folk would have done it - especially somewhere like Luz.

Re the argument that they weren't prosecuted because of their class or wealth, I can't remember seeing a ton of cases were poor folk have been prosecuted for it, either so I think it's a bit of a straw man argument for me.

I don't think they murdered her either, I think the implications and how many people would need to have been involved in covering it up makes that the most unlikely scenario. There's also the fact that they both had professions that were dedicated to saving lives, and I know you could say the same about Harold Shipman, but I think in general that's a good indicator that they care enough about human life to not become murderers.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think what they did was far, far more commonplace than you'd think nowadays. In many ways, Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a game-changer in how folk viewed leaving their kids.

The nanny service that was available was essentially the same as what the parents were doing - regular, routine checks on the kids rather than an adult sitting in with them.

I remember pre-Madeleine McCann having a weekend with the wife and my son, who at that time was a baby, at the Roxburghe hotel (which IIRC is in the Borders), I might have the hotel wrong but it's not that relevant anyway.

We were staying in an outer building adjacent to the hotel, or off the main hotel at least, and because Josh was such a nightmare for sleeping we couldn't get him settled (our plan was to take him with us in his pram, and eat while he slept in the dining room beside us).

As he was awake, we asked the receptionist if it was ok to order our meal as room service - we didn't want Josh crying while folk were eating their meals. The receptionist offered to check in on him every now and again to let us go in for the meal. We politely refused and took the meal to the room, but it was clearly not frowned upon to use a service like that.

In which case, you can see why a group of adults who were happy to take turns to effectively perform the nanny service wouldn't think it was a big deal, and while it's a big "how could you?!" nowadays, back then I think loads of folk would have done it - especially somewhere like Luz.

Re the argument that they weren't prosecuted because of their class or wealth, I can't remember seeing a ton of cases were poor folk have been prosecuted for it, either so I think it's a bit of a straw man argument for me.

I don't think they murdered her either, I think the implications and how many people would need to have been involved in covering it up makes that the most unlikely scenario. There's also the fact that they both had professions that were dedicated to saving lives, and I know you could say the same about Harold Shipman, but I think in general that's a good indicator that they care enough about human life to not become murderers.

Great post.

[overdrive]

I think what they did was far, far more commonplace than you'd think nowadays. In many ways, Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a game-changer in how folk viewed leaving their kids.

The nanny service that was available was essentially the same as what the parents were doing - regular, routine checks on the kids rather than an adult sitting in with them.

I remember pre-Madeleine McCann having a weekend with the wife and my son, who at that time was a baby, at the Roxburghe hotel (which IIRC is in the Borders), I might have the hotel wrong but it's not that relevant anyway.

We were staying in an outer building adjacent to the hotel, or off the main hotel at least, and because Josh was such a nightmare for sleeping we couldn't get him settled (our plan was to take him with us in his pram, and eat while he slept in the dining room beside us).

As he was awake, we asked the receptionist if it was ok to order our meal as room service - we didn't want Josh crying while folk were eating their meals. The receptionist offered to check in on him every now and again to let us go in for the meal. We politely refused and took the meal to the room, but it was clearly not frowned upon to use a service like that.

In which case, you can see why a group of adults who were happy to take turns to effectively perform the nanny service wouldn't think it was a big deal, and while it's a big "how could you?!" nowadays, back then I think loads of folk would have done it - especially somewhere like Luz.

Re the argument that they weren't prosecuted because of their class or wealth, I can't remember seeing a ton of cases were poor folk have been prosecuted for it, either so I think it's a bit of a straw man argument for me.

I don't think they murdered her either, I think the implications and how many people would need to have been involved in covering it up makes that the most unlikely scenario. There's also the fact that they both had professions that were dedicated to saving lives, and I know you could say the same about Harold Shipman, but I think in general that's a good indicator that they care enough about human life to not become murderers.

Yep. My parents would go away with other couples twice a year. There would be me and two other kids (brothers) all around the same age in the party. We would eat earlier, go to one of the rooms to play/sleep whilst the parents ate and drank. My parents and the parents of the other two would periodically come up to check on us.

[danhibees1875]

I think what they did was far, far more commonplace than you'd think nowadays. In many ways, Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a game-changer in how folk viewed leaving their kids.

The nanny service that was available was essentially the same as what the parents were doing - regular, routine checks on the kids rather than an adult sitting in with them.

I remember pre-Madeleine McCann having a weekend with the wife and my son, who at that time was a baby, at the Roxburghe hotel (which IIRC is in the Borders), I might have the hotel wrong but it's not that relevant anyway.

We were staying in an outer building adjacent to the hotel, or off the main hotel at least, and because Josh was such a nightmare for sleeping we couldn't get him settled (our plan was to take him with us in his pram, and eat while he slept in the dining room beside us).

As he was awake, we asked the receptionist if it was ok to order our meal as room service - we didn't want Josh crying while folk were eating their meals. The receptionist offered to check in on him every now and again to let us go in for the meal. We politely refused and took the meal to the room, but it was clearly not frowned upon to use a service like that.

In which case, you can see why a group of adults who were happy to take turns to effectively perform the nanny service wouldn't think it was a big deal, and while it's a big "how could you?!" nowadays, back then I think loads of folk would have done it - especially somewhere like Luz.

Re the argument that they weren't prosecuted because of their class or wealth, I can't remember seeing a ton of cases were poor folk have been prosecuted for it, either so I think it's a bit of a straw man argument for me.

I don't think they murdered her either, I think the implications and how many people would need to have been involved in covering it up makes that the most unlikely scenario. There's also the fact that they both had professions that were dedicated to saving lives, and I know you could say the same about Harold Shipman, but I think in general that's a good indicator that they care enough about human life to not become murderers.

Sums up what I haven't been able to put so succinctly since watching the documentary. :aok:

[21.05.2016]

Such a sad story, someone, some where out there knows what happened to that little girl.

I've gone back and forward on the whole "were the parents involved in some way" debate. At very minimum they are guilty of neglegance and very irresponsible parenting by leaving 3 very young children alone in the apartment. I just can't see any motive as to WHY they would want to harm her or even if she died by an accident, why they would try to cover it up. I get that if your child had an accident and died your first reaction would be complete and utter panic and despair but these two are smart people, surely they would think to call the ambulance/police/apartment staff etc.

Shudder to think the possibility of her being taken by some sick peadophile ring. Sickening.

[The Baldmans Comb]

I have always felt Madeline McCann died that afternoon or early evening and the parents hid the body and then disposed of it the next day or so probably in the sea and then faked the 'bogeyman did it' that evening.

The most likely cause of death was an accidental drug overdose related to her sleeping problems administered by her medical parents.

Portuguese Police seemed to have followed a similar line of questioning but obviously fell short of evidence.

[Moulin Yarns]

I have always felt Madeline McCann died that afternoon or early evening and the parents hid the body and then disposed of it probably in the sea and then faked the 'bogeyman did it' that evening.

The most likely cause of death was an accidental drug overdose related to her sleeping problems administered by her medical parents.

Portuguese Police seemed to have followed a similar line of questioning but obviously fell short of evidence.

I posted above about the parallels with The Cry. The writer denies it is based on the McCann case.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5473364/

[Steve-O]

I have always felt Madeline McCann died that afternoon or early evening and the parents hid the body and then disposed of it the next day or so probably in the sea and then faked the 'bogeyman did it' that evening.

The most likely cause of death was an accidental drug overdose related to her sleeping problems administered by her medical parents.

Portuguese Police seemed to have followed a similar line of questioning but obviously fell short of evidence.

“Fell short” of evidence because there was none.

I’ve watched 5 episodes of the show and it seems clear they didn’t do this.

[hibee_girl]

I have always felt Madeline McCann died that afternoon or early evening and the parents hid the body and then disposed of it the next day or so probably in the sea and then faked the 'bogeyman did it' that evening.

The most likely cause of death was an accidental drug overdose related to her sleeping problems administered by her medical parents.

Portuguese Police seemed to have followed a similar line of questioning but obviously fell short of evidence.

As a regular visitor to Luz I honestly don’t see how they could have gotten her body into the sea without someone seeing them, there’s always people milling about no matter what time of day/night it is.

Personally I dont think they did anything wrong other than leaving her alone in the first place.

[The Baldmans Comb]

As a regular visitor to Luz I honestly don’t see how they could have gotten her body into the sea without someone seeing them, there’s always people milling about no matter what time of day/night it is.

Personally I dont think they did anything wrong other than leaving her alone in the first place.

I think one of the parents put the body in the hired car and drove up the coast and dumped it well away from Luz.

That would be the "sensible" but horrible thing to do. Plenty opportunity and you only need an hour or two.

Another theory not explored is why not drive inland and bury the body there.

There is no evidence whatsoever at all to say "The Bogeyman dun it" hence statistically you have to look at the parents as number 1 suspects.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think one of the parents put the body in the hired car and drove up the coast and dumped it well away from Luz.

That would be the "sensible" but horrible thing to do. Plenty opportunity and you only need an hour or two.

Another theory not explored is why not drive inland and bury the body there.

There is no evidence whatsoever at all to say "The Bogeyman dun it" hence statistically you have to look at the parents as number 1 suspects.

I agree with that from a what-should-the-police-have-done pov. But they couldn't prove that either - so we have to assume they're innocent. My gut feel (fwiw, ie. nowt) is they wouldn't have been able to keep up the level of pretence, continually putting themselves in the public eye when they didn't have to, if they were guilty.

[The Baldmans Comb]

I agree with that from a what-should-the-police-have-done pov. But they couldn't prove that either - so we have to assume they're innocent. My gut feel (fwiw, ie. nowt) is they wouldn't have been able to keep up the level of pretence, continually putting themselves in the public eye when they didn't have to, if they were guilty.

I would agree with you that without question they are totally innocent until proven guilty and there is no question whatsoever of that.

However we are only talking maybe's and possibities and probabilities.

My conclusion based on TV, Books, newspaper and public records and statistical analysis is that the parents rank a long way ahead of a unknown,unnamed mythical bogeyman.

[JeMeSouviens]

I would agree with you that without question they are totally innocent until proven guilty and there is no question whatsoever of that.

However we are only talking maybe's and possibities and probabilities.

My conclusion based on TV, Books, newspaper and public records and statistical analysis is that the parents rank a long way ahead of a unknown,unnamed mythical bogeyman.

In general terms, I agree.

[danhibees1875]

I would agree with you that without question they are totally innocent until proven guilty and there is no question whatsoever of that.

However we are only talking maybe's and possibities and probabilities.

My conclusion based on TV, Books, newspaper and public records and statistical analysis is that the parents rank a long way ahead of a unknown,unnamed mythical bogeyman.

I'm not sure what statistical analysis you've done/seen, but I can't say I agree.

I fail to see how, or why, they would have been able to hide the body and later dispose of the body (while in the meantime getting as much police and media attention on them as possible). It's then been an elongated process of keeping themselves in the public eye ever since.

For me the most logical conclusion is someone took her, dead or alive, and moved to get her away/out the country quicker than the police were able to mobilise themselves. If it was premeditated to take her/someone then having an escape vehicle and safe hide away seems likely.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not sure what statistical analysis you've done/seen, but I can't say I agree.

I fail to see how, or why, they would have been able to hide the body and later dispose of the body (while in the meantime getting as much police and media attention on them as possible). It's then been an elongated process of keeping themselves in the public eye ever since.

For me the most logical conclusion is someone took her, dead or alive, and moved to get her away/out the country quicker than the police were able to mobilise themselves. If it was premeditated to take her/someone then having an escape vehicle and safe hide away seems likely.

I presumed that meant that in the vast majority of child murders, it turns out to have been a family member rather than a random maniac. I'm sure that's true.

[The Baldmans Comb]

I presumed that meant that in the vast majority of child murders, it turns out to have been a family member rather than a random maniac. I'm sure that's true.

That's exactly where I am coming from as there were a couple of countries which might have been Holland and Australia(really can't remember) began logging stats on who had been convictred for child abductions and murders

Statistically they worked out that 83% my guess but something like that of all serious crimes against children were done by someone known to the child.

The other 17% again my guess but something like that were committed by a complete stranger.

Hence without knowing any of the facts surrounding this case and stripping away all the emotion then if you believe in statistical patterns then there is a 17% chance a Bogeyman killed the wee girl and 83% chance it was close family member, a friend of the family or someone known to the child such as a nanny or hotel worker.

Its probably a good starting point for future sorry cases and investigations as well as personality profiles of any suspects and whether they were evasive or acted suspiciously during questioning.

Whoever it was who killed the tragic girl got rid of the body and virtually all the evidence which was the true "magnificence" of their horrendus crime.

[Allant1981]

I've watched the full programme now and read various different stories regarding this case, what amazes me is the fact they would not answer all the questions asked by the police, when you fail to do that it's only going to make people more suspicious of you. The dogs picking up the blood scent and body scent was very strange, something clearly happened in that room and car. They also picked up a scent on Kate's clothing, again why was there blood on her clothing, I dont think they killed her but why did they think it was ok to leave their kids and why have they never been pulled up for child neglect

[Callum_62]

I think one of the parents put the body in the hired car and drove up the coast and dumped it well away from Luz.

That would be the "sensible" but horrible thing to do. Plenty opportunity and you only need an hour or two.

Another theory not explored is why not drive inland and bury the body there.

There is no evidence whatsoever at all to say "The Bogeyman dun it" hence statistically you have to look at the parents as number 1 suspects.

They hired the car 2-3 weeks after her disappearance

Where did they keep the body in the meantime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[overdrive]

They hired the car 2-3 weeks after her disappearance

Where did they keep the body in the meantime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the fridge that other lot kept the kid in!

[patch1875]

Wasn’t going to watch this but think I will now. My thoughts have been that the parents has something to do with it other than leaving them home alone will see if changes anything.

[danhibees1875]

I presumed that meant that in the vast majority of child murders, it turns out to have been a family member rather than a random maniac. I'm sure that's true.

That makes more sense, and I can see that being likely just through the time spent with parents when a child. But that would assume this was definitely a murder case than, rather than an abduction (followed by a murder or otherwise); which would change the "statistics" for this case.

I'd disagree that it should be the default position to assume it was the parents (not that you suggested it), but that line of enquiry was taken and led to nothing.

I just can't see how, with all the police and media attention they had around them 24/7 from so early they could have got away with hiding the body for a couple of weeks and then nipping off to dispose of it. It's not like they waltzes through a sea of reporters saying "excuse me, I'm off out to the middle of the Atlantic with this suitcase - nothing to see here!".

Being able to keep up the facade for 12 years without anything coming out would seem hard work too. Especially with the amount of attention they've had. They're doctors not criminal masterminds.

[speedy_gonzales]

They're doctors not criminal masterminds.

Maybe that's how they got away with it (if anything) because society tends to put certain people on a pedestal depending on their vocation.
The media reaction to the crimes of (Dr) Harold Shipman & Beverley Allitt seemed disproportionate to other serial killers because of their medical background.
If only Karen Matthews worked for the NHS,,,

[danhibees1875]

Maybe that's how they got away with it (if anything) because society tends to put certain people on a pedestal depending on their vocation.
The media reaction to the crimes of (Dr) Harold Shipman & Beverley Allitt seemed disproportionate to other serial killers because of their medical background.
If only Karen Matthews worked for the NHS,,,

I'm not sure that makes any sense. :confused:

I don't know what parallels, or otherwise, you're trying to draw between these cases. You've highlighted a doctor who got found guilty anyway, and a woman who got similar media attention over her missing girl (despite not being put on the pedestal you claim society put certain people on) before they found out she was lying the whole time.

If anything, I think their social status of the McCann's has made some people more keen to lay the blame on them.

Whatever view the media have on them wouldn't really matter. But regardless of their status, the media did still turn on them and falsely accuse them of murdering their child.

[Allant1981]

I'm not sure that makes any sense. :confused:

I don't know what parallels, or otherwise, you're trying to draw between these cases. You've highlighted a doctor who got found guilty anyway, and a woman who got similar media attention over her missing girl (despite not being put on the pedestal you claim society put certain people on) before they found out she was lying the whole time.

If anything, I think their social status of the McCann's has made some people more keen to lay the blame on them.

Whatever view the media have on them wouldn't really matter. But regardless of their status, the media did still turn on them and falsely accuse them of murdering their child.

The police made them suspects so of course the media were going to run with the story

[Cataplana]

Hi guys, I have been reading this thread with interest. First of all, cards on the table, I have spent an unhealthy amount of time investigating what is known about Maddie's disappearance.

Rather than tell you where to look for further information, can I just say "Google is your friend". There are a myriad of sites out there carrying useful information, and quite a few bat **** crazy theories, which have to be read to be believed.

I have reached my own conclusions, or at least formed my own suspicions about what went on. The first thing I would like to say is, I notice that there is an acceptance that the child was abducted; I'd ask you to consider the fact that there is little to support an abduction, and much to suggest that this was staged by the McCanns.

This is based on the book, "The Truth of the Lie" (A Verdade da Mentira), by the cop who was responsible for investigating the claims, and who decided that the McCanns had further questions to answer. This book, based on the actual files of the Policial Judicial (PJ) is an objective analysis of what is known.

It is worth noting that the McCanns were so annoyed about this book, that they sued the man through every court in Portugal, until the Supreme Court ruled in his favour. The ruling pointed out that, at no point were the McCanns told they were no longer suspects, and that the author (Goncalo Amaral) was not in breach of anything by forming the conclusions he had.

The book cannot be purchased in the UK, but online versions, in English, are available. In the interests of balance, Kate McCann has her own account of what happened. Needless to say both books tell very different stories.

For me, the thing that turned me from wanting to believe in the abduction was the alerts of the two sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela. One is trained to alert to the smell of death (cadavarine) and the other to the scent of blood. They alerted to these scents in the McCann's apartment at the Ocean Club, in the McCann's villa that they went to after leaving the Ocean Club, and in their hire car - which was not rented until 25 days after Maddie disappeared.

This was enough to convince Amaral that there were grounds for suspecting the McCanns, and he duly brought them in for questioning. This questioning was never completed satisfactorily. Why was that? Plenty theories out there.

Then there is the DNA evidence, which the Netflix programme is at pains to state is unreliable. Certainly 16, out of 20 markers is not enough for a 100% link to Maddie, but in some countries, it would mean the parents were in court. It is certainly possible that, in the future, that DNA will be analysed more accurately, and may either exclude Maddie's presence in that hire car, or confirm it.

In conclusion, I'd like you to be open minded about the case. There are basically two theories: abduction by persons unknown; death in the apartment, covered up by the parents. There is no proof that either thing happened, there is a strong suspicion in my mind that leads me to support one theory over another.

This is about justice for Madeleine McCann, whether she was abducted and is still alive, or has since died, or who died in 5A, she is at the centre of this whole thing. Personally, I find some of the McCanns utterings over the years to be different from what I would expect, often centring on them rather than the child - that does not mean anything.

For me, if someone can do a reliable advanced DNA test which says yea or nay, then it is over in my mind. Whilst that doubt remains, I find it hard to believe she was abducted. Bear in mind that David Gilroy was convicted of the death of Suzanne Pilley, without any body being found, the only real evidence of death was the scent of cadavarine in his boot.

Thanks for taking the time to listen, and I wish you well in your discussion. I spend far too much time reading about it, so that's the last you'll hear from me now.

Tchau e Obrigado.

[wpj]

Interesting, can I ask you why you "have spent an unhealthy amount of time investigating what is known about Maddie's disappearance"?

[Cataplana]

Interesting, can I ask you why you "have spent an unhealthy amount of time investigating what is known about Maddie's disappearance"?

I spend a lot of time in Portugal, I became really interested in the case when I found out about the libel action against the detective. I wanted more answers, once I started looking it raised more questions.

This isn't about me though, it's about the information out there, and I have come on here to point people in the direction of more reliable information than what is printed by the British media.

I think I've spent an unhealthy amount of time, because really I've found myself going round in circles with no conclusion to the case in sight.

It's not about me though.

[Billy Whizz]

I just can’t believe that the mum and dad would do something to harm their children
They made a big big mistake by leaving them in the room unsupervised, but for me that was the biggest crime they committed
I just can’t comprehend they would harm their beautiful little girl

[wpj]

I spend a lot of time in Portugal, I became really interested in the case when I found out about the libel action against the detective. I wanted more answers, once I started looking it raised more questions.

This isn't about me though, it's about the information out there, and I have come on here to point people in the direction of more reliable information than what is printed by the British media.

I think I've spent an unhealthy amount of time, because really I've found myself going round in circles with no conclusion to the case in sight.

It's not about me though.

Appreciate the reply. I havent really looked in any great detail myself. It's tragic no matter what occurred.

[Billy Whizz]

Appreciate the reply. I havent really looked in any great detail myself. It's tragic no matter what occurred.

100% agree with your last sentence
Hopefully one day we find out what happened to the poor wee girl

[Hibeesmad]

It's shame that there was no CCTV.

[Cataplana]

I just can’t believe that the mum and dad would do something to harm their children
They made a big big mistake by leaving them in the room unsupervised, but for me that was the biggest crime they committed
I just can’t comprehend they would harm their beautiful little girl

Amaral's theory is that she died by accident, probably by falling off the couch she was standing on to see out the window. Both dogs alerted behind the couch, and blood was spattered on the walls.

He suggests what followed was a cover up to protect the people who were eating dinner, who may have been fearful of the damage it would do to their careers. The theory is that maybe they didn't kill their daughter, but were very reckless in leaving her alone.

It has been pointed out that the timeline of checks that they made, on the child's colouring book, would mean that there would be a constant getting up and sitting down at the dinner table, that would mean that nobody was actually at the table. You have to ask yourself, would your first actions on finding your child missing be to write a timeline of what you had been doing up until that point?

Personally, I would be out searching the streets round about. Kate and Gerry did not join the search at all, but busied themselves making phone calls to the press and other people they knew at home.

I'm not saying that makes them guilty of anything, it just gives you something to think about. I think the fairest thing to say is that they acted "differently" from other parents.

It's worth mentioning that in 300 other cases, the cadaver dog was never wrong. On the balance of probabilities, the scent of death was detected in the following places: behind the setee, and on a shelf in the living room of 5a; in the bushes at the back of 5a; on Kate's trousers; on the child's toy, "Cuddle Cat"; in a hold all owned by Gerry; in the boot and at the front door of the car they hired, 25 days later; in the villa they left after leaving the Ocean Club resort.

All of these things would justify any detective in wanting to eliminate the parents from the enquiry. The fact that the McCanns tried to obstruct that enquiry, and did not co-operate with things like a reconstruction, which would surely be helpful in finding their child, doesn't make them guilty, but it does raise suspicion.

[Steve-O]

Amaral's theory is that she died by accident, probably by falling off the couch she was standing on to see out the window. Both dogs alerted behind the couch, and blood was spattered on the walls.

He suggests what followed was a cover up to protect the people who were eating dinner, who may have been fearful of the damage it would do to their careers. The theory is that maybe they didn't kill their daughter, but were very reckless in leaving her alone.

It has been pointed out that the timeline of checks that they made, on the child's colouring book, would mean that there would be a constant getting up and sitting down at the dinner table, that would mean that nobody was actually at the table. You have to ask yourself, would your first actions on finding your child missing be to write a timeline of what you had been doing up until that point?

Personally, I would be out searching the streets round about. Kate and Gerry did not join the search at all, but busied themselves making phone calls to the press and other people they knew at home.

I'm not saying that makes them guilty of anything, it just gives you something to think about. I think the fairest thing to say is that they acted "differently" from other parents.

It's worth mentioning that in 300 other cases, the cadaver dog was never wrong. On the balance of probabilities, the scent of death was detected in the following places: behind the setee, and on a shelf in the living room of 5a; in the bushes at the back of 5a; on Kate's trousers; on the child's toy, "Cuddle Cat"; in a hold all owned by Gerry; in the boot and at the front door of the car they hired, 25 days later; in the villa they left after leaving the Ocean Club resort.

All of these things would justify any detective in wanting to eliminate the parents from the enquiry. The fact that the McCanns tried to obstruct that enquiry, and did not co-operate with things like a reconstruction, which would surely be helpful in finding their child, doesn't make them guilty, but it does raise suspicion.

I don’t know if you watched the show? I’ve just finished it and it absolutely seems to me that the parents are innocent. Amaral’s credibility was absolutely shot by the end of it in my view.

The dog issue was interesting, but as noted in the show, there was no real DNA evidence of Madeleine McCann that came back from any of the areas the dogs scented.

If the parents had done it, they could’ve kept a low profile and basically nobody would’ve remembered by now - why would they keep raising the profile of the case, and therefore their chances of getting caught? Makes no sense.

[Steve-O]

Hi guys, I have been reading this thread with interest. First of all, cards on the table, I have spent an unhealthy amount of time investigating what is known about Maddie's disappearance.

Rather than tell you where to look for further information, can I just say "Google is your friend". There are a myriad of sites out there carrying useful information, and quite a few bat **** crazy theories, which have to be read to be believed.

I have reached my own conclusions, or at least formed my own suspicions about what went on. The first thing I would like to say is, I notice that there is an acceptance that the child was abducted; I'd ask you to consider the fact that there is little to support an abduction, and much to suggest that this was staged by the McCanns.

This is based on the book, "The Truth of the Lie" (A Verdade da Mentira), by the cop who was responsible for investigating the claims, and who decided that the McCanns had further questions to answer. This book, based on the actual files of the Policial Judicial (PJ) is an objective analysis of what is known.

It is worth noting that the McCanns were so annoyed about this book, that they sued the man through every court in Portugal, until the Supreme Court ruled in his favour. The ruling pointed out that, at no point were the McCanns told they were no longer suspects, and that the author (Goncalo Amaral) was not in breach of anything by forming the conclusions he had.

The book cannot be purchased in the UK, but online versions, in English, are available. In the interests of balance, Kate McCann has her own account of what happened. Needless to say both books tell very different stories.

For me, the thing that turned me from wanting to believe in the abduction was the alerts of the two sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela. One is trained to alert to the smell of death (cadavarine) and the other to the scent of blood. They alerted to these scents in the McCann's apartment at the Ocean Club, in the McCann's villa that they went to after leaving the Ocean Club, and in their hire car - which was not rented until 25 days after Maddie disappeared.

This was enough to convince Amaral that there were grounds for suspecting the McCanns, and he duly brought them in for questioning. This questioning was never completed satisfactorily. Why was that? Plenty theories out there.

Then there is the DNA evidence, which the Netflix programme is at pains to state is unreliable. Certainly 16, out of 20 markers is not enough for a 100% link to Maddie, but in some countries, it would mean the parents were in court. It is certainly possible that, in the future, that DNA will be analysed more accurately, and may either exclude Maddie's presence in that hire car, or confirm it.

In conclusion, I'd like you to be open minded about the case. There are basically two theories: abduction by persons unknown; death in the apartment, covered up by the parents. There is no proof that either thing happened, there is a strong suspicion in my mind that leads me to support one theory over another.

This is about justice for Madeleine McCann, whether she was abducted and is still alive, or has since died, or who died in 5A, she is at the centre of this whole thing. Personally, I find some of the McCanns utterings over the years to be different from what I would expect, often centring on them rather than the child - that does not mean anything.

For me, if someone can do a reliable advanced DNA test which says yea or nay, then it is over in my mind. Whilst that doubt remains, I find it hard to believe she was abducted. Bear in mind that David Gilroy was convicted of the death of Suzanne Pilley, without any body being found, the only real evidence of death was the scent of cadavarine in his boot.

Thanks for taking the time to listen, and I wish you well in your discussion. I spend far too much time reading about it, so that's the last you'll hear from me now.

Tchau e Obrigado.

The series basically discredited Amaral and his book upon which you base your statements.

[Cataplana]

I don’t know if you watched the show? I’ve just finished it and it absolutely seems to me that the parents are innocent. Amaral’s credibility was absolutely shot by the end of it in my view.

The dog issue was interesting, but as noted in the show, there was ZERO DNA evidence of Madeleine McCann that came back from any of the areas the dogs scented.

If the parents had done it, they could’ve kept a low profile and basically nobody would’ve remembered by now - why would they keep raising the profile of the case, and therefore their chances of getting caught? Makes no sense.

The show adopted one theory, and presented facts that supported it, it left out many things that would look bad for the parents. There is much more detailed information out there which might lead you to question your view.

There was DNA that could have been Maddie's, the evidence was inconclusive. That makes the DNA unadmissable, it does not mean it was not her DNA. Advances in DNA testing will be needed to establish once and for all whether it was hers. It depends on how you interpret the word "evidence", yes there is no admissable evidence, but there is still enough to raise suspicion, which when taken alongside the other circumstantial evidence, would lead to a strong suspicion that the parents were involved.

Likewise, the cadaver dog's alert is not corroborated evidence, however that dog was never wrong in 300 other cases.

It is wrong to speculate on what the parents would have done, and then say it points to their guilt or innocence. There are many things that you wouldn't expect them to have done, and many things that you would expect them to do. These things do not prove, or disprove guilt.

Why would they change their story within 24 hours of raising the alarm, why did they not search for the child, why would the facts in their story not add up? Not enough to convict anybody of course, but enough to have the police wanting to ask questions.

If they were innocent, why didn't they co operate with the police, why did they leave Portugal when the investigation was ongoing? Why hire a PR officer to go to the police station with you when you are about to be questioned?

One of the most laughable things coming from their side was that doctors couldn't do such a thing (Clarence Mitchell, McCann PR man, on BBC Panarama). As if a doctor has never been involved in anything like that before.

The Netflix film is a good watch, but it is dangerous to let one presentation of the facts lead you to where it sets out to lead you. All I can say is start off with Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie. It is available on line, but has never been published in the UK, why is that?

Is it because the McCanns have used the fund they built up to search for their daughter to fund lawyers like Carter Ruck to come down heavy on anyone who questions them? Read what's out there, it is illuminating.



The series basically discredited Amaral and his book upon which you base your statements.





Yet the Portuguese Supreme Court said there was no defamation in the book, very little was made of that in the programmes. Who do you trust. the Portuguese legal system, or Netflix?

Do you trust the word of suspects in the case, over the word of the policeman who was trying to find out the truth?

[Smartie]

I've not seen the show so will not comment on that, but Netflix recently made a series on my particular area of speciality.

It is the most misleading, unscientific drivel I have ever encountered but a lot of people have seen it and believed it.

People trust Netflix more than they trust trained professionals.

"Making a murderer" and "the Staircase" are both compelling viewing but the truth is that large chunks of the story were left out in order to tell the entertaining story that the documentary writers wanted to tell.

Without getting into tinfoil hat territory, it always serves you well to maintain a healthy amount of cynicism about sources and the motivations of people who contribute towards them, books, tv shows and whatever.

[Steve-O]

The show adopted one theory, and presented facts that supported it, it left out many things that would look bad for the parents. There is much more detailed information out there which might lead you to question your view.

There was DNA that could have been Maddie's, the evidence was inconclusive. That makes the DNA unadmissable, it does not mean it was not her DNA. Advances in DNA testing will be needed to establish once and for all whether it was hers. It depends on how you interpret the word "evidence", yes there is no admissable evidence, but there is still enough to raise suspicion, which when taken alongside the other circumstantial evidence, would lead to a strong suspicion that the parents were involved.

Likewise, the cadaver dog's alert is not corroborated evidence, however that dog was never wrong in 300 other cases.

It is wrong to speculate on what the parents would have done, and then say it points to their guilt or innocence. There are many things that you wouldn't expect them to have done, and many things that you would expect them to do. These things do not prove, or disprove guilt.

Why would they change their story within 24 hours of raising the alarm, why did they not search for the child, why would the facts in their story not add up? Not enough to convict anybody of course, but enough to have the police wanting to ask questions.

If they were innocent, why didn't they co operate with the police, why did they leave Portugal when the investigation was ongoing? Why hire a PR officer to go to the police station with you when you are about to be questioned?

One of the most laughable things coming from their side was that doctors couldn't do such a thing (Clarence Mitchell, McCann PR man, on BBC Panarama). As if a doctor has never been involved in anything like that before.

The Netflix film is a good watch, but it is dangerous to let one presentation of the facts lead you to where it sets out to lead you. All I can say is start off with Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie. It is available on line, but has never been published in the UK, why is that?

Is it because the McCanns have used the fund they built up to search for their daughter to fund lawyers like Carter Ruck to come down heavy on anyone who questions them? Read what's out there, it is illuminating.








Yet the Portuguese Supreme Court said there was no defamation in the book, very little was made of that in the programmes. Who do you trust. the Portuguese legal system, or Netflix?

Do you trust the word of suspects in the case, over the word of the policeman who was trying to find out the truth?


I’m not sure the Netflix documentary did present one particular point of view? It seemed relatively objective to me. Amaral was given as much opportunity to talk as anyone else, for example.

You talk about these 300 cases of the dogs being right, where is the evidence of that?

What about that other case Amaral was involved in? Didn’t exactly seem watertight.

I’m not sure a revision of a timeline is a full on “change of story” by the McCanns. I’m guessing they left Portugal because they felt that they weren’t getting anywhere, and the Police were trying to frame them. Not to mention that they had the two other kids to consider.

It just seems preposterous that they did it IMO.

[Steve-O]

I've not seen the show so will not comment on that, but Netflix recently made a series on my particular area of speciality.

It is the most misleading, unscientific drivel I have ever encountered but a lot of people have seen it and believed it.

People trust Netflix more than they trust trained professionals.

"Making a murderer" and "the Staircase" are both compelling viewing but the truth is that large chunks of the story were left out in order to tell the entertaining story that the documentary writers wanted to tell.

Without getting into tinfoil hat territory, it always serves you well to maintain a healthy amount of cynicism about sources and the motivations of people who contribute towards them, books, tv shows and whatever.

What show are you referring to?

[Cataplana]

I've not seen the show so will not comment on that, but Netflix recently made a series on my particular area of speciality.

It is the most misleading, unscientific drivel I have ever encountered but a lot of people have seen it and believed it.

People trust Netflix more than they trust trained professionals.

"Making a murderer" and "the Staircase" are both compelling viewing but the truth is that large chunks of the story were left out in order to tell the entertaining story that the documentary writers wanted to tell.

Without getting into tinfoil hat territory, it always serves you well to maintain a healthy amount of cynicism about sources and the motivations of people who contribute towards them, books, tv shows and whatever.

The Madeleine programmes gave an awful lot of time to Summers and Swan, who wrote a book which supported the abduction theory. It also gave a lot of time to Jim Gamble (who some might also call a discredited cop) who is looking for funding to continue his private enterprise which tracks down paedophiles.

There was also an inordinate amount of screen time given to Brian Kennedy, and his son. Hibs fans will know Kennedy as the man who tried to take over the club and was sent packing by Tom Farmer. He later went on to ruin Southport. The word discredited might have been invented for him. Yet, the documentary let him present himself as a great humanitarian.

Some have questioned Kennedy's involvement in the case, and pointed out the charitable funds are an ideal place to launder money. He was responsible for hiring dodgy private eyes, who took the hunt off on a wild goose chase. In fact they took the hunt as far away from Praia da Luz as possible.

Doesn't prove a thing of course, except that when people present evidence, the least viewers should do is question what they have to gain from what they are saying.


I’m not sure the Netflix documentary did present one particular point of view? It seemed relatively objective to me. Amaral was given as much opportunity to talk as anyone else, for example.

You talk about these 300 cases of the dogs being right, where is the evidence of that?

What about that other case Amaral was involved in? Didn’t exactly seem watertight.

I’m not sure a revision of a timeline is a full on “change of story” by the McCanns. I’m guessing they left Portugal because they felt that they weren’t getting anywhere, and the Police were trying to frame them. Not to mention that they had the two other kids to consider.

It just seems preposterous that they did it IMO.

It would seem relatively objective if that was the only thing you knew about the subject, yes.

The evidence about the 300 cases, and the validity of the dogs is well established. Google is your friend.

The stuff about the revision of the story is documented in the PJ files, which are easily accessed online. There is no point in us debating it if you haven't read it.

Well, we can all guess as to why they did what they did. I guess quite a lot of people who are guilty of something try to say they are being framed, or discredit those who speak against them. The only way we can find out is if the McCanns actually answer the questions the police had.

I dare say they did have two other kids to consider. You have to ask how much consideration they gave them when they were out drinking with friends every night, whilst they were in a room, alone, in a strange country. Likewise, you have to wonder how much consideration Kate gave them when she ran out of the apartment shouting "Madeleine's been taken", leaving them alone in the room when the "abductor" could still be in there.

Lots of questions left unanswered. There is lots more information out there, and I'd say you are doing the child a disservice by accepting one point of view, presented in a progamme which was scrutinised by the McCanns lawyers for anything that might not look good for them.

You say Amaral had plenty opportunity to put his side. Yes he did, and he presented it well. The final editorial decision wasn't Amaral's, and so it was for someone else to decide what stayed in and what stayed out. Like a clever lawyer, the programme presented evidence which would lead you to the conclusion they wanted you to make.

[James310]

Not seen the series but if I read correctly they never went looking for their child after she dissappeared? They were on the phone to press? Surely not.

If one of my kids was not where they were supposed to be I would immediately be searching for them, I can't understand why that is not the first thing they did.

[Allant1981]

I’m not sure the Netflix documentary did present one particular point of view? It seemed relatively objective to me. Amaral was given as much opportunity to talk as anyone else, for example.

You talk about these 300 cases of the dogs being right, where is the evidence of that?

What about that other case Amaral was involved in? Didn’t exactly seem watertight.

I’m not sure a revision of a timeline is a full on “change of story” by the McCanns. I’m guessing they left Portugal because they felt that they weren’t getting anywhere, and the Police were trying to frame them. Not to mention that they had the two other kids to consider.

It just seems preposterous that they did it IMO.

Pretty sure I read of one dog alone who has helped on 200 different cases, the Americans used cadaver dogs after 9/11 also, just a pity the dogs cant talk!!

[Smartie]

What show are you referring to?

Sorry to be evasive with this but I'd rather not answer that - answering would reveal what I do for a living and little bit of googling would blow my anonymity on here, anonymity which I quite enjoy.

[Just Jimmy]

Sorry to be evasive with this but I'd rather not answer that - answering would reveal what I do for a living and little bit of googling would blow my anonymity on here, anonymity which I quite enjoy.Batman?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Steve-O]

Not seen the series but if I read correctly they never went looking for their child after she dissappeared? They were on the phone to press? Surely not.

If one of my kids was not where they were supposed to be I would immediately be searching for them, I can't understand why that is not the first thing they did.

Pretty sure they did all go out looking on the night, according to the Netflix show.

[danhibees1875]

Pretty sure they did all go out looking on the night, according to the Netflix show.

I thought the show said they searched for a few hours in the dark before returning to their apartment for a little while in a failed attempt to get some sleep before searching again at sunrise.

Part of what I don't like about some of the theories is the attempted amateur psychoanalysis over parents who have just found their daughter missing. I can only imagine how distressing that would be, I don't think it's possible to predict how anyone would react and nor is it fair to criticise the way they reacted.

[Cataplana]

I thought the show said they searched for a few hours in the dark before returning to their apartment for a little while in a failed attempt to get some sleep before searching again at sunrise.

Part of what I don't like about some of the theories is the attempted amateur psychoanalysis over parents who have just found their daughter missing. I can only imagine how distressing that would be, I don't think it's possible to predict how anyone would react and nor is it fair to criticise the way they reacted.

One of the 48 questions the police asked Kate, was why did you not search for your daughter? The voiceover in the film has her saying they had to wait till dawn before they went out, and she says much the same thing in your book.

Like you say, psychoanalysing what people should and shouldn't do in that situation is not helpful. Nevertheless if you are the police, psychoanalysis is what you do - it would have been helpful if Kate had explained herself.

Likewise it would be helpful to know why Kate and Gerry spent so much time deleting text messages whilst others were searching for their daughter. The Netflix sows are good, but they don't ask many of the questions that other programmes have, and maybe give too much of a one sided account.

Central to nearly every pro McCann argument is that they are the decent people who the Portuguese tried to fit up, instead of looking for their daughter. Ask yourself, what did the Portuguese have to gain from it?

Some of the rubbishing of the Portuguese police, and Amaral in particular, is racist. All playing on the perception of greasy dagos smoking and playing cards, before arresting some innocent to fit them up.

Bear in mind that the most obvious attempt at a fit up was when three of the Tapas 7 tried to say they had seen Murat on the night of the disappearance.

Suspicions are not evidence, but they did a lot of suspicious things in the days and weeks after the disappearance. We can all spot liars, we would not survive if we couldn't. That does not make us psychoanalysts, it just makes us normal people.

In my book, if it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, it usually is a dog. Getting back to the dog alerts, a DNA expert in the states has offered to use advanced DNA testing to determine if it was Maddie's DNA in the car - surely the McCanns would be jumping at the chance to clear their name?

[McD]

One of the 48 questions the police asked Kate, was why did you not search for your daughter? The voiceover in the film has her saying they had to wait till dawn before they went out, and she says much the same thing in your book.

Like you say, psychoanalysing what people should and shouldn't do in that situation is not helpful. Nevertheless if you are the police, psychoanalysis is what you do - it would have been helpful if Kate had explained herself.

Likewise it would be helpful to know why Kate and Gerry spent so much time deleting text messages whilst others were searching for their daughter. The Netflix sows are good, but they don't ask many of the questions that other programmes have, and maybe give too much of a one sided account.

Central to nearly every pro McCann argument is that they are the decent people who the Portuguese tried to fit up, instead of looking for their daughter. Ask yourself, what did the Portuguese have to gain from it?

Some of the rubbishing of the Portuguese police, and Amaral in particular, is racist. All playing on the perception of greasy dagos smoking and playing cards, before arresting some innocent to fit them up.

Bear in mind that the most obvious attempt at a fit up was when three of the Tapas 7 tried to say they had seen Murat on the night of the disappearance.

Suspicions are not evidence, but they did a lot of suspicious things in the days and weeks after the disappearance. We can all spot liars, we would not survive if we couldn't. That does not make us psychoanalysts, it just makes us normal people.

In my book, if it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, it usually is a dog. Getting back to the dog alerts, a DNA expert in the states has offered to use advanced DNA testing to determine if it was Maddie's DNA in the car - surely the McCanns would be jumping at the chance to clear their name?


whilst I can see a lot of logic to your points made throughout this thread, this is one I don’t see it. Portugal is a massive tourist attractor, and I would think they would want to minimise any aspersions that it is a place where children are kidnapped, and that the authorities there are struggling to find her.

thats not to say I do think the Portuguese authorities did try to fit them up.

[Cataplana]

whilst I can see a lot of logic to your points made throughout this thread, this is one I don’t see it. Portugal is a massive tourist attractor, and I would think they would want to minimise any aspersions that it is a place where children are kidnapped, and that the authorities there are struggling to find her.

thats not to say I do think the Portuguese authorities did try to fit them up.

They were certainly having an effect on tourism, and that has to be considered. I'm not naive enough to think there wasn't pressure on the police to get a result.

One of the troubling things for me was how quickly Team McCann battened down the hatches. Two weeks after the disappearance, the fund was set up by Kate's Uncle, Brian Kennedy.

When asked what it would be used for, he said "mostly legal expenses". Not for looking for the child, or supporting the parents while they remained in Portugal, but "legal expenses".

Then the dogs were brought over. Gerry was able to phone three different high ranking officers in Britain to find out if the dogs would be valid evidence.

The McCanns also had friends in high places. However start looking into conspiracy theories and you go to some dark places.

I would just like answers the inconsistencies in the Tapas 7s stories, I'd like to know what happened to the charity money, I'd like to know why they evaded talking to the police.

[Cataplana]

The Netflix documentary seemed to imply that the McCanns have been dismissed by the Portuguese authorities. When they sued Amaral, they specifically asked for this to be stated in the verdict.

As well as finding that Amaral had done nothing wrong in giving an opinion, the Supreme Court in Lisbon stated that the investigation is ongoing, and the McCanns have not been ruled out.

The book is opinion, but when you read the facts it was based on, it's possible you will form the same suspicions this police officer had.


Sorry for this link but it will take you to a pdf English translation of the book and the police files.


https://www.google.com/url?q=http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/Goncalo%2520Amaral%2520-%2520Truth%2520of%2520the%2520Lie%2520-%2520Madeleine%2520McCann.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjvscuz377hAhWISxUIHUYLATgQFjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2j-sMT1w4nb5ijbij1L6_-

[matty_f]

I'm not quite finished watching the documentary, bit from what I've seen so far the dogs signalling was a red herring, there was no DNA evidence to corroborate the signals. Not even trace blood samples, if I remember right.

And the theory that they hid the body and then moved out weeks later is bonkers, did they just nip out their apartment in ****ing disguise to move the body? It's ludicrous.

From what i know about the case, in order for the McCanns to have done it, they'd also need to have conducted a fairly forensic clean up of their apartment etc whilst having dinner with their friends.

[matty_f]

They were certainly having an effect on tourism, and that has to be considered. I'm not naive enough to think there wasn't pressure on the police to get a result.

One of the troubling things for me was how quickly Team McCann battened down the hatches. Two weeks after the disappearance, the fund was set up by Kate's Uncle, Brian Kennedy.

When asked what it would be used for, he said "mostly legal expenses". Not for looking for the child, or supporting the parents while they remained in Portugal, but "legal expenses".

Then the dogs were brought over. Gerry was able to phone three different high ranking officers in Britain to find out if the dogs would be valid evidence.

The McCanns also had friends in high places. However start looking into conspiracy theories and you go to some dark places.

I would just like answers the inconsistencies in the Tapas 7s stories, I'd like to know what happened to the charity money, I'd like to know why they evaded talking to the police.

Is Brian Kennedy Kate's uncle? In the documentary they imply that there's no connection between them.

[bigwheel]

Is Brian Kennedy Kate's uncle? In the documentary they imply that there's no connection between them.

He didn’t know them ..he requested a meeting with them before he would agree to help them . Had no relationship with them before ,
Was just moved by the missing girl story and reached out to help...

this guy on this thread clearly knows a lot!about the case, still feels all speculation and a bit unbalanced to me.

I suspect we will never know what happened. An inconceivable devastating loss for the family .

[matty_f]

He didn’t know them ..he requested a meeting with them before he would agree to help them . Had no relationship with them before ,
Was just moved by the missing girl story and reached out to help...

this guy on this thread clearly knows a lot!about the case, still feels all speculation and a bit unbalanced to me.

I suspect we will never know what happened. An inconceivable devastating loss for the family .

I don't think we'll ever find out either.

I couldn't find anything other than the poster's statement to say that Kennedy was her uncle. I thought it was a weird detail to get wrong.

[bigwheel]

I don't think we'll ever find out either.

I couldn't find anything other than the poster's statement to say that Kennedy was her uncle. I thought it was a weird detail to get wrong.

Here is a quote from an online article

“...Kennedy was one of many keeping tabs on the case and didn't like how the McCanns had become focal point.


After meeting the McCann family, Scottish businessman Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick pledged to help find their missing 3-year-old, Madeleine.

"I was following the story like everyone else. I saw that the media and the world had turned against these people. I was thinking, 'No way. I will absolutely lose all faith in human nature if these parents are involved,'" Kennedy said on the new Netflix docu-series "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann." "We were in the fortunate position in which we had the resources to be able to reach out and help them."

Patrick Kennedy, Brian's son, further explained he and his father's motivation for aiding the McCanns.

"If you can do something to help, you bloody better try and help. That's something that my dad is all about."

Brian got into contact with the McCann family's lawyers, believing Kate and Gerry to be totally innocent from the start.

[matty_f]

Here is a quote from an online article

“...Kennedy was one of many keeping tabs on the case and didn't like how the McCanns had become focal point.


After meeting the McCann family, Scottish businessman Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick pledged to help find their missing 3-year-old, Madeleine.

"I was following the story like everyone else. I saw that the media and the world had turned against these people. I was thinking, 'No way. I will absolutely lose all faith in human nature if these parents are involved,'" Kennedy said on the new Netflix docu-series "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann." "We were in the fortunate position in which we had the resources to be able to reach out and help them."

Patrick Kennedy, Brian's son, further explained he and his father's motivation for aiding the McCanns.

"If you can do something to help, you bloody better try and help. That's something that my dad is all about."

Brian got into contact with the McCann family's lawyers, believing Kate and Gerry to be totally innocent from the start.

Thanks. That's lifted from the documentary as well (I watched that particular episode last night, before posting) which was why the claim that he was her uncle threw me - I thought that would have been a significant detail to omit from the documentary.

[bigwheel]

Thanks. That's lifted from the documentary as well (I watched that particular episode last night, before posting) which was why the claim that he was her uncle threw me - I thought that would have been a significant detail to omit from the documentary.

Cheers ..ah, ok...not watched the documentary...feel it is just likely to be overall “sad”...

The impact to the girl and family is devastating, whatever occurred in that terrible night ...unimaginable

[Cataplana]

Is Brian Kennedy Kate's uncle? In the documentary they imply that there's no connection between them.

I'm not sure if there is maybe more than one BK in the story.

On the subject of DNA, the programme makers allow semantics to go unchallenged. There definitely was DNA found, it was not possible to say inconclusively it was Maddies, therefore it is not evidence in the legal sense. The fact they couldn't say inconclusively it wasn't Maddie's means that a suspicion remains. One that could be cleared up by advances in DNA testing.

The documentary follows a particular line which is more sympathetic to the McCann version of events, what has to have been blood spatters on the wall is described as "bodily fluid".

Some sort of clean up appears to have been done, that was concluded by the police. Timescales are only difficult if you accept the Tapas 7 timeline. There is strong suspicion that is a fabrication, particularly given that they changed it, after they gave if to the police.
Don't forget, the lack of forensics is even greater if you support the abduction theory - no evidence of jemmying the window, no material threads on the window sill, no footprint on the setee.

Then there is Kate's massive porky about coming into the room, and the curtains went "whoosh", except there was a
setee holding the curtains back. And there was only one print on the window - Kate's, suggesting it had been opened from the inside.

Again there is no accounting for behaviour, but the fact that they were working on a timeline, instead of searching for their daughter, raises suspicion. For example, you may not be searching for her, because you know she is dead.

Likewise, why would you leave two sleeping kids in the bedroom if you suspected an abductor was at large. Kate did that.

It's worth reading up to form a complete picture. It is also worth thinking about how much the McCanns have spent silencing people. They are not acting like innocent people.

I actually think the case will be solved, as soon as the political will of the two countries comes together. Finally the victim in this is Madeleine McCann, her parents neglect either caused her to fall and die in the apartment, or be taken away by persons unknown.

They deserve little sympathy. Gerry, despite his vow to leave no stone unturned has managed to get on with his life in a way few other people in his situation would. When not busy whingeing about the intrusiveness of the media, or trying to ruin Amaral, he has been busy getting on with his career. He has now risen to a Professor of Cardiology.

Not bad going with all that guilt that he's supposed to be carrying for his neglect of parental duties.

[Cataplana]

Is Brian Kennedy Kate's uncle? In the documentary they imply that there's no connection between them.

Just done more research. Different people, she does have an uncle Brian Kennedy, who was at the forefront of the fund. It was he who said he envisaged it being used for legal expenses.

[Mr_F]

The Netflix documentary is "TV" friendly & setup not to upset the McCann's..

There's far better research and videos on this subject, google Richard D Hall - He goes much further into this case, video analysis of the McCann's interviews, numerous discrepencies in statements, phone records etc..

All the decent bits Netflix convieniently missed out...

[bigwheel]

I'm not sure if there is maybe more than one BK in the story.

On the subject of DNA, the programme makers allow semantics to go unchallenged. There definitely was DNA found, it was not possible to say inconclusively it was Maddies, therefore it is not evidence in the legal sense. The fact they couldn't say inconclusively it wasn't Maddie's means that a suspicion remains. One that could be cleared up by advances in DNA testing.

The documentary follows a particular line which is more sympathetic to the McCann version of events, what has to have been blood spatters on the wall is described as "bodily fluid".

Some sort of clean up appears to have been done, that was concluded by the police. Timescales are only difficult if you accept the Tapas 7 timeline. There is strong suspicion that is a fabrication, particularly given that they changed it, after they gave if to the police.
Don't forget, the lack of forensics is even greater if you support the abduction theory - no evidence of jemmying the window, no material threads on the window sill, no footprint on the setee.

Then there is Kate's massive porky about coming into the room, and the curtains went "whoosh", except there was a
setee holding the curtains back. And there was only one print on the window - Kate's, suggesting it had been opened from the inside.

Again there is no accounting for behaviour, but the fact that they were working on a timeline, instead of searching for their daughter, raises suspicion. For example, you may not be searching for her, because you know she is dead.

Likewise, why would you leave two sleeping kids in the bedroom if you suspected an abductor was at large. Kate did that.

It's worth reading up to form a complete picture. It is also worth thinking about how much the McCanns have spent silencing people. They are not acting like innocent people.

I actually think the case will be solved, as soon as the political will of the two countries comes together. Finally the victim in this is Madeleine McCann, her parents neglect either caused her to fall and die in the apartment, or be taken away by persons unknown.

They deserve little sympathy. Gerry, despite his vow to leave no stone unturned has managed to get on with his life in a way few other people in his situation would. When not busy whingeing about the intrusiveness of the media, or trying to ruin Amaral, he has been busy getting on with his career. He has now risen to a Professor of Cardiology.

Not bad going with all that guilt that he's supposed to be carrying for his neglect of parental duties.

It's statements like this that don't have balance - many many parents have done the exact same with baby sitting or hotel services over decades....they didn't have the trauma of losing a child..For many years this was socially accepted practice....

[Cataplana]

It's statements like this that don't have balance - many many parents have done the exact same with baby sitting or hotel services over decades....they didn't have the trauma of losing a child..For many years this was socially accepted practice....


I have heard that said, but it's not my experience. Many people I speak to , particularly in Portugal cannot understand how you could leave kids home alone. I accept that others seem to think it's ok, so that balances up for me.

You would have to see the layout of the place for yourself and I'd challenge you to say it was safe. The one thing that makes me believe the abduction is how easy it would be given their habits, the distance of the restaurant and how difficult it was to see the apartment.

I am pretty sure that if someone left their kids at home alone, and nipped round the corner here, they would soon be in bother

The documentary painted a good picture for the McCanns.

[bigwheel]

I have heard that said, but it's not my experience. Many people I speak to , particularly in Portugal cannot understand how you could leave kids home alone. I accept that others seem to think it's ok, so that balances up for me.

You would have to see the layout of the place for yourself and I'd challenge you to say it was safe. The one thing that makes me believe the abduction is how easy it would be given their habits, the distance of the restaurant and how difficult it was to see the apartment.

I am pretty sure that if someone left their kids at home alone, and nipped round the corner here, they would soon be in bother

The documentary painted a good picture for the McCanns.

Not seen the doc -It was, for many years, fairly common practice for parents here...would be common place for British parents to do this on holiday. Hindsight decision making is an easy game. - in the same way as many would never do it now.

[matty_f]

I have heard that said, but it's not my experience. Many people I speak to , particularly in Portugal cannot understand how you could leave kids home alone. I accept that others seem to think it's ok, so that balances up for me.

You would have to see the layout of the place for yourself and I'd challenge you to say it was safe. The one thing that makes me believe the abduction is how easy it would be given their habits, the distance of the restaurant and how difficult it was to see the apartment.

I am pretty sure that if someone left their kids at home alone, and nipped round the corner here, they would soon be in bother

The documentary painted a good picture for the McCanns.

I've seen the layout in person (I holidayed in the adjaecent apartment shortly after Madeleine went missing) and, while I wouldn't have done it myself, I don't think that what the McCann group did (comparative to what the nanny service offered) was so outrageous for the time.

[Cataplana]

I've seen the layout in person (I holidayed in the adjaecent apartment shortly after Madeleine went missing) and, while I wouldn't have done it myself, I don't think that what the McCann group did (comparative to what the nanny service offered) was so outrageous for the time.

Ok, there are two schools of thought on that. I would say that if you behaved as recklessly as they did and your child is abducted it's your fault.

However, it's not really neglect that's up for discussion. It's a case of whether you support the abduction theory, or the death and cover up one.

I just wonder why it was so important for them to have their stories straight that they focused on that rather than look for the child.

It was so important that they used the child's sticker book to write a timeline. Then they changed the time line when it was challenged.

The best you can say is that they wanted to show how careful they were. But, if thete was nothing wrong with their behaviour for the time, why would they worr

[Cataplana]

Not seen the doc -It was, for many years, fairly common practice for parents here...would be common place for British parents to do this on holiday. Hindsight decision making is an easy game. - in the same way as many would never do it now.

I disagree , but if it was I wonder why they have gone to great lengths to point this out? Surely people would know?

I have never known parents to drug their kids so they can go out drinking. It must happen, bit I wouldn't say it was right.

Hindsight is necessary for everyone when looking at the past. I dare say they'd agree it wasn't the wisest move to leave your kids alone in an apartment, next to a road w
witj your view obscured by a hedge, and sit in the same place every night leaving them for up to an hour and a half

Have you seen the explanation of how the abductor would have got in, through shutters and opened the window, climbed over the couch, lifted one child and then got out the same way?
All the time while the door was open?

How did the twins sleep through that and right through till morning while mayhem ensued in the apartment?

[Allant1981]

Not seen the doc -It was, for many years, fairly common practice for parents here...would be common place for British parents to do this on holiday. Hindsight decision making is an easy game. - in the same way as many would never do it now.

Common practice to leave your kids in a room themselves and go for dinner? I must be in the minority then as I never had that done or know of any friend that was left in their hotel room so the parents could go out

[bigwheel]

Common practice to leave your kids in a room themselves and go for dinner? I must be in the minority then as I never had that done or know of any friend that was left in their hotel room so the parents could go out

Never done it myself but not too dissimilar to nanny offerings in many resorts and hotels ....many friends have taken their monitor down to dinner with them whilst at a hotel or on hols in my experience ...

[Allant1981]

Never done it myself but not too dissimilar to nanny offerings in many resorts and hotels ....many friends have taken their monitor down to dinner with them whilst at a hotel or on hols in my experience ...

A nanny service is different though, you arent leaving your kids a couple of hundred yards away on their. Personally think that anyone leaving their kids alone in a hotel room to go have dinner is disgusting but each to their own, cant say I'd ever consider it with mine, when we go on holiday we know there are things we need to do now as parents and that means either bringing the kids along or heading back to the room, the Joy's of parenthood!!!!

[bigwheel]

I disagree , but if it was I wonder why they have gone to great lengths to point this out? Surely people would know?

I have never known parents to drug their kids so they can go out drinking. It must happen, bit I wouldn't say it was right.

Hindsight is necessary for everyone when looking at the past. I dare say they'd agree it wasn't the wisest move to leave your kids alone in an apartment, next to a road w
witj your view obscured by a hedge, and sit in the same place every night leaving them for up to an hour and a half

Have you seen the explanation of how the abductor would have got in, through shutters and opened the window, climbed over the couch, lifted one child and then got out the same way?
All the time while the door was open?

How did the twins sleep through that and right through till morning while mayhem ensued in the apartment?



what questions do you raise on the police’s completely ineffective response to blocking roads and borders after the event ?

What questions do you have on the group of friends lack of variance of their stories since the event ...I’m not talking minor timeline variances..but all completely aligned. How plausible would that be if not true?

[bigwheel]

A nanny service is different though, you arent leaving your kids a couple of hundred yards away on their. Personally think that anyone leaving their kids alone in a hotel room to go have dinner is disgusting but each to their own, cant say I'd ever consider it with mine, when we go on holiday we know there are things we need to do now as parents and that means either bringing the kids along or heading back to the room, the Joy's of parenthood!!!!

I agree with you ..kids are part of the fun of holidays


some nanny services at hotels are periodic checks ..what’s the difference ?

I’m sure in hindsight they realise it was a terrible judgement call..my point though , is for the grace..and all that - could have been many parents story ..

[speedy_gonzales]

Common practice to leave your kids in a room themselves and go for dinner? I must be in the minority then as I never had that done or know of any friend that was left in their hotel room so the parents could go out

You’re not alone, I’d never leave my daughter alone in a room whilst on holiday. Partly because of security/trust issues but mainly because when I go on a family holiday, it’s a family holiday! Even when she was nursing our daughter came out in the evening. As a couple, we have plenty of opportunities for “adult” time,,,,


Never done it myself but not too dissimilar to nanny offerings in many resorts and hotels ....many friends have taken their monitor down to dinner with them whilst at a hotel or on hols in my experience ...

I get shivers when I think of the nanny night service you used to get at Butlins resorts in the 70’s/80’s. It consisted of a young (minimum wage equivalent) girl walking along the rows of chalets, if she heard an upset child she radioed it in and the parents were paged over the Tannoy system.
If there was no noise then all was OK, apparently!
As others have said, it was different days back then!

[Cataplana]

what questions do you raise on the police’s completely ineffective response to blocking roads and borders after the event ?

What questions do you have on the group of friends lack of variance of their stories since the event ...I’m not talking minor timeline variances..but all completely aligned. How plausible would that be if not true?

The police already suspected there was no abduction, as they were suapucious about inconsistencies in the story?

When Shannon Matthews was "abducted" in the UK, what was different? Were borders sealed? We're the Yorkshire police equally ineffective?

It's not really a matter of what questions I had, as the PJ had 48 they wanted to ask the concerned parents. 48 questions that were not answered. These are a matter of public record.

I suppose the main question I would have is how many attempts to you make before you settled on the story you gave? Why were you not looking for the child instead of covering your own asses?
I'd like to know why only one person reported seeing a man with a child at the time, yet a month or so later, three were saying it was definitely Murat they saw

I'd like to know why so little was said about the sighting of a man, matching GMs description, down to the clothes he was wearing, walking towards the beach or church, carrying a child was not discussed. Or if it was, why so little attention was given, particularly as the Smiths were not asked to say on air what they saw.

I'd also like to ask the programme makers why certain facts that looked bad for the McCanns were left out of the programme.

Here's a link to the questions,I think spending time on some of them would everyone understand what happened better?

https://thetab.com/uk/2019/03/15/48-questions-kate-mccann-95757

This link to podcasts from Channel 9 is Australia is full of interesting points too.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/maddie-podcast-episodes-what-happened-madeleine-mccann/42db9a1d-427c-4fd6-83eb-12dece8fad8f

[Cataplana]

I agree with you ..kids are part of the fun of holidays


some nanny services at hotels are periodic checks ..what’s the difference ?

I’m sure in hindsight they realise it was a terrible judgement call..my point though , is for the grace..and all that - could have been many parents story ..

If your child wasn't in her room, what would you do next, go and look for her,or get on the phone to people you know in the UK.

Would you over ride police advice about publicising distinguishing features, even if they told you you were signing the child's death warrant?


Bear in mind there are officers from the UK in PDL by this point.

The McCanns want everyone to believe we are just like them, yet in a lot of things they are not. Would you be able to go jogging daily, or play tennis whilst your child was missing?

Maybe jogging is the only place they could get space to discuss their plans, I don't know.

[matty_f]

Ok, there are two schools of thought on that. I would say that if you behaved as recklessly as they did and your child is abducted it's your fault.

However, it's not really neglect that's up for discussion. It's a case of whether you support the abduction theory, or the death and cover up one.

I just wonder why it was so important for them to have their stories straight that they focused on that rather than look for the child.

It was so important that they used the child's sticker book to write a timeline. Then they changed the time line when it was challenged.

The best you can say is that they wanted to show how careful they were. But, if thete was nothing wrong with their behaviour for the time, why would they worr

I'm sure that if one of my kids went missing under those circumstances I'd want to be able to give as accurate an account of what happened as I possibly could.

It's not even like all the friends' accounts were identical, there are variancies that are consistent with people recalling the same event from different perspectives. If all the accounts were choreographed and the same, then it would set more alarm bells ringing rather than fewer.

I don't know if she was abducted, but I would say that on the balance of probability she was not killed either intentionally or unintentionally by her parents.

For me, the series of events that are required for the McCanns to be responsible for the death, disappearance and subsequent cover up (forensics, moving the body, keeping it from everyone else, keeping the story going for so long and so on) is so far fetched as to be ludicrous.

People are very selective with the evidence that they present, and this is the case no matter which theory is being supported, but things like saying that the DNA doesn't prove that it wasn't Madelaine (rather than saying it doesn't prove that it was), or taking the sniffer dogs without supporting evidence, or the wholly supposition-led line of "why didn't they answer questions.." or "who else would go out jogging.." questions are at best misleading and at worst damaging.

How anyone could say how they would react without being in that situation themselves is beyond me.

What about the witness who say a man carrying a child, then later confirmed it was Gerry McCann that they saw, and then later changed their mind (Gerry had witnesses to say that it couldn't possibly have been him as he was elsewhere). Is their account ok to be changed but not the McCann's?

If you asked me what I did today, as a timeline from the top of my head, it's likely that I'd get something wrong, and it's likely that as I remembered something later I'd want to put it right - and that's me without anywhere near the level of stress that I'd find myself with having just had one of my kids disappear.

There are, IMHO, a lot of people who for whatever reason want to believe that the McCanns are guilty, and like the people who want to believe that the US Government brought down the Twin Towers, they'll believe whatever evidence supports their belief and dismiss anything that counters it.

If there was strong evidence to support the theory that the McCanns did it, then I'd be happy to accept it. So far, there is nothing that I've seen to strongly support that idea, be that through the documentary, visiting Luz, or reading the various theories on the internet.

[matty_f]

The police already suspected there was no abduction, as they were suapucious about inconsistencies in the story?

When Shannon Matthews was "abducted" in the UK, what was different? Were borders sealed? We're the Yorkshire police equally ineffective?

It's not really a matter of what questions I had, as the PJ had 48 they wanted to ask the concerned parents. 48 questions that were not answered. These are a matter of public record.

I suppose the main question I would have is how many attempts to you make before you settled on the story you gave? Why were you not looking for the child instead of covering your own asses?
I'd like to know why only one person reported seeing a man with a child at the time, yet a month or so later, three were saying it was definitely Murat they saw

I'd like to know why so little was said about the sighting of a man, matching GMs description, down to the clothes he was wearing, walking towards the beach or church, carrying a child was not discussed. Or if it was, why so little attention was given, particularly as the Smiths were not asked to say on air what they saw.

I'd also like to ask the programme makers why certain facts that looked bad for the McCanns were left out of the programme.

Here's a link to the questions,I think spending time on some of them would everyone understand what happened better?

https://thetab.com/uk/2019/03/15/48-questions-kate-mccann-95757

This link to podcasts from Channel 9 is Australia is full of interesting points too.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/maddie-podcast-episodes-what-happened-madeleine-mccann/42db9a1d-427c-4fd6-83eb-12dece8fad8f

If you want to see them, there are a lot of facts about the case that look bad for the McCanns in the documentary.

There clearly aren't enough facts known to anyone to support the theory that they were responsible sufficient for either the Portugese or British Police to charge the McCanns of the crime of killing their daughter.

That's (at least) two police forces working on the highest profile missing child case in living memory, and between them - despite actively investigating the theory that it was the McCanns - have not found enough evidence to blame them.

Surely they're better placed than internet theorists?

[Cataplana]

If you want to see them, there are a lot of facts about the case that look bad for the McCanns in the documentary.

There clearly aren't enough facts known to anyone to support the theory that they were responsible sufficient for either the Portugese or British Police to charge the McCanns of the crime of killing their daughter.

That's (at least) two police forces working on the highest profile missing child case in living memory, and between them - despite actively investigating the theory that it was the McCanns - have not found enough evidence to blame them.

Surely they're better placed than internet theorists?

I agree there is an explanation for everything. Yes, of course the police are better placed, yes not enough to convict, but certainly lots of unanswered suspicions.

Worth noting that the last thing from Operation Grange was that they had narrowed the search down to two subjects.

I personally can't get passed the dog alerting to Cadaverine in the places it did. Hamburgh police reckon that the dogs get it wrong in around 10% of cases. That would mean the dog made a lifetime of mistakes in PDL.

I came on here to discuss the Netflix series, I would just like people to look more closely at the motives of those involved, and the information collected by the PJ.

There was no evidencel of an abduction, or break in, the PJ believed the scene had been staged, and there were inconsistencies in stories.

It seems to me it's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled!

Heres what the Portuguese have, so it comes down to who you believe. The police or their prime suspects. The imagination and fantasy applies both ways.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm

Edit: this is not the Twin Towers is it? The information is in official records, the Portuguese supreme court saw nothing wrong with the book. It seems it's more a case of nice British middle class couple framed up by nasty foreign sardine munchers. There is more evidence of a death than there is of an abduction. Yet, people are still supposed to take the words of suspects over police.

I agree there is crazy stuff out there about Mossaad and MI5, the McCanns trafficking their own daughter etc. This is one case though that all the information is there. At the end of the day, you have to ask who is believing what they want to believe, people who go to the source material, or people who have seen a less than objective Netflix programme?

[matty_f]

I agree there is an explanation for everything. Yes, of course the police are better placed, yes not enough to convict, but certainly lots of unanswered suspicions.

Worth noting that the last thing from Operation Grange was that they had narrowed the search down to two subjects.

I personally can't get passed the dog alerting to Cadaverine in the places it did. Hamburgh police reckon that the dogs get it wrong in around 10% of cases. That would mean the dog made a lifetime of mistakes in PDL.

I came on here to discuss the Netflix series, I would just like people to look more closely at the motives of those involved, and the information collected by the PJ.

There was no evidencel of an abduction, or break in, the PJ believed the scene had been staged, and there were inconsistencies in stories.

It seems to me it's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled!

Heres what the Portuguese have, so it comes down to who you believe. The police or their prime suspects. The imagination and fantasy applies both ways.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm

The crucial thing about the dogs is that they sniffed blood and death, they did not necessarily sniff Madeleine's death or blood.

For death they can sniff it years after the body was there, so it's not even narrowed down to recent death.

If the dogs has specifically signalled for Madeleine's blood or death, then I'd think there was strong evidence to implicate the McCanns, if it's just blood or death then frankly their alerts on their own are virtually no evidence at all.

[Cataplana]

The crucial thing about the dogs is that they sniffed blood and death, they did not necessarily sniff Madeleine's death or blood.

For death they can sniff it years after the body was there, so it's not even narrowed down to recent death.

If the dogs has specifically signalled for Madeleine's blood or death, then I'd think there was strong evidence to implicate the McCanns, if it's just blood or death then frankly their alerts on their own are virtually no evidence at all.

Given that they alerted in the McCanns two houses in PDL, in the bushes outside 5a, in the hire car, on Kate's clothes and on Cuddle Cat, it's highly likely that someone in the McCann family died.

So if not Maddie, whose death did the Cadaver dog alert to?

This is where no evudence becomes a matter of semantics. In Portugal the dog alert has to be corroborated. In Scotland it is different.

So when people keep saying "no evidence" they are really saying no corroborated evidence.

I gave a link to Channel 9 in Australia. There is an interesting interview with a US DNA expert who reckons he can determine whose blood was in the apartment. You'd think the McCanns would welcome this as it would exclude them.

[bigwheel]

If your child wasn't in her room, what would you do next, go and look for her,or get on the phone to people you know in the UK.

Would you over ride police advice about publicising distinguishing features, even if they told you you were signing the child's death warrant?


Bear in mind there are officers from the UK in PDL by this point.

The McCanns want everyone to believe we are just like them, yet in a lot of things they are not. Would you be able to go jogging daily, or play tennis whilst your child was missing?

Maybe jogging is the only place they could get space to discuss their plans, I don't know.

I literally have no idea what those points have to do with in relation to the post you quote....

[Cataplana]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

Grimes statement on the reliability of the dogs.

[bigwheel]

The police already suspected there was no abduction, as they were suapucious about inconsistencies in the story?

When Shannon Matthews was "abducted" in the UK, what was different? Were borders sealed? We're the Yorkshire police equally ineffective?

It's not really a matter of what questions I had, as the PJ had 48 they wanted to ask the concerned parents. 48 questions that were not answered. These are a matter of public record.

I suppose the main question I would have is how many attempts to you make before you settled on the story you gave? Why were you not looking for the child instead of covering your own asses?
I'd like to know why only one person reported seeing a man with a child at the time, yet a month or so later, three were saying it was definitely Murat they saw

I'd like to know why so little was said about the sighting of a man, matching GMs description, down to the clothes he was wearing, walking towards the beach or church, carrying a child was not discussed. Or if it was, why so little attention was given, particularly as the Smiths were not asked to say on air what they saw.

I'd also like to ask the programme makers why certain facts that looked bad for the McCanns were left out of the programme.

Here's a link to the questions,I think spending time on some of them would everyone understand what happened better?

https://thetab.com/uk/2019/03/15/48-questions-kate-mccann-95757

This link to podcasts from Channel 9 is Australia is full of interesting points too.
https://www.9news.com.au/world/maddie-podcast-episodes-what-happened-madeleine-mccann/42db9a1d-427c-4fd6-83eb-12dece8fad8f


If we agree that the parents were negligent to leave their kids alone , I’m surprised you wouldn’t acknowledge the negligence of the police response ..the police may well, as you state, have suspected there was no abduction - but to use this assumption to limit The policing response is unforgivable, whatever the truth

It’s not a subject I have great info on- so will drop out of this now...as I’ll add no value to the convo...I just wanted to defend some (perhaps unhealthy) but not uncommon
Holiday practice of some parents to leave their kids with some check in supervision on holiday...

your agenda is clear - you may be right , but it feel there is a lack Of balance in your assessment of what happened..it feels you are simply using “facts/assertion” to substantiate your hypothesis ..

[Cataplana]

[QUOTE=bigwheel;5760702]I literally have no idea what those points have to do with in relation to the post you qu

I was responding to your empathy with the McCann, and wondered if the empathy would extend to how they reacted to the disappearance.

Just interested, no hidden agenda.

[bigwheel]

[QUOTE=bigwheel;5760702]I literally have no idea what those points have to do with in relation to the post you qu

I was responding to your empathy with the McCann, and wondered if the empathy would extend to how they reacted to the disappearance.

Just interested, no hidden agenda.

Your agenda isn’t hidden , I’ll give you that [emoji2]

Tbh. There was so much content on your response, it just came over as a ramble....

[Cataplana]

If we agree that the parents were negligent to leave their kids alone , I’m surprised you wouldn’t acknowledge the negligence of the police response ..the police may well, as you state, have suspected there was no abduction - but to use this assumption to limit The policing response is unforgivable, whatever the truth

It’s not a subject I have great info on- so will drop out of this now...as I’ll add no value to the convo...I just wanted to defend some (perhaps unhealthy) but not uncommon
Holiday practice of some parents to leave their kids with some check in supervision on holiday...

your agenda is clear - you may be right , but it feel there is a lack Of balance in your assessment of what happened..it feels you are simply using “facts/assertion” to substantiate your hypothesis ..

Thanks, I don't want to brow beat people, only to point them in the direction of other information.

I accept that the response of the local police was shoddy, but it doesn't cover everything that happened later.

The issue of police competence was raised by the McCanns, they would say that though, wouldn't they?

[Cataplana]

[QUOTE=Cataplana;5760727]

Your agenda isn’t hidden , I’ll give you that [emoji2]

Tbh. There was so much content on your response, it just came over as a ramble....

I fear I may be messing up my agenda. I just want people to look at the stuff that wasn't covered in the documentary.

Instead I'm pushing what I consider important facts at people.

If I'm at the rambling stage, it's time to butt out. I'd never make a QC, that's for sure.

[Hibby70]

Batman?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

😂😂

[Fuzzywuzzy]

I haven't watched it yet. I've listened to a podcast on it by those conspiracy guys and that was interesting. I think it lasted about 6hrs. They go over everything they've researched and then give the view they've taken. I've always thought the McCann's had a part in whatever happened.

The thing that gets me about this is if this was a working class family that had left their kids in an apartment alone to go out drinking and eating with friends the press and social media would have slaughtered them.

[oldbutdim]

I get shivers when I think of the nanny night service you used to get at Butlins resorts in the 70’s/80’s. It consisted of a young (minimum wage equivalent) girl walking along the rows of chalets, if she heard an upset child she radioed it in and the parents were paged over the Tannoy system.
If there was no noise then all was OK, apparently!
As others have said, it was different days back then!

I was a young parent at Butlins back in them days........................:agree:

It was perfectly acceptable, in fact it wasn't just acceptable it was 'the doen thing'.

"Baby crying in Chalet 203" ............ followed by a bloke sighing, draining his pint and heading for the door.


Only time it was frowned upon was if the same chalet number was repeated a few times.

[speedy_gonzales]

I was a young parent at Butlins back in them days........................:agree:

It was perfectly acceptable, in fact it wasn't just acceptable it was 'the doen thing'.

"Baby crying in Chalet 203" ............ followed by a bloke sighing, draining his pint and heading for the door.


Only time it was frowned upon was if the same chalet number was repeated a few times.

I was the child back then and for all my many Butlins holidays, knew no different.
Unfortunately the system wasn't bullet proof. One night when I was around 7 I had a really disturbed sleep (due to eating too many peanut cluster ice lollys at the in-house cinema) I rolled over and fell out of bed. Unfortunately I was in a top bunk and clattered my head on the set of drawers as gravity done it's thing.
The folks found me in a semi concussed state on the floor!

[Moulin Yarns]

I was the child back then and for all my many Butlins holidays, knew no different.
Unfortunately the system wasn't bullet proof. One night when I was around 7 I had a really disturbed sleep (due to eating too many peanut cluster ice lollys at the in-house cinema) I rolled over and fell out of bed. Unfortunately I was in a top bunk and clattered my head on the set of drawers as gravity done it's thing.
The folks found me in a semi concussed state on the floor!

Some might think that explains a lot. 😉

[oldbutdim]

I was the child back then and for all my many Butlins holidays, knew no different.
Unfortunately the system wasn't bullet proof. One night when I was around 7 I had a really disturbed sleep (due to eating too many peanut cluster ice lollys at the in-house cinema) I rolled over and fell out of bed. Unfortunately I was in a top bunk and clattered my head on the set of drawers as gravity done it's thing.
The folks found me in a semi concussed state on the floor!

Just to be absolutely clear here, I am not Speedy's dad.

[G B Young]

I haven't watched it yet. I've listened to a podcast on it by those conspiracy guys and that was interesting. I think it lasted about 6hrs. They go over everything they've researched and then give the view they've taken. I've always thought the McCann's had a part in whatever happened.

The thing that gets me about this is if this was a working class family that had left their kids in an apartment alone to go out drinking and eating with friends the press and social media would have slaughtered them.

You don't think the McCanns have been slaughtered on social media?? They have been hung, drawn and quartered by many who want them to be guilty of something untoward simply because of their nice, well educated middle class image. People like that, in the view of those only too willing to jump on a wild conspiracy theory, are fair game for endless abuse.

Quite how any can seriously believe the Madeleine's parents have managed to cover up her disappearance for so many years, while all the while keeping the other seven adults who were with them that night onside, is mind-boggling.

Somebody else has raised the 'kidnapping' of the 'working class' Shannon Matthews. In what way was that any less sympathetically dealt with by the media? It was national news for days until the pitiful truth emerged.

Class should play no part in this tragic story.

[speedy_gonzales]

Some might think that explains a lot. 😉

Aype!
True story, around that time, and like many other young kids then, I had a penchant for Aberdeen FC. Credit to my dad he had patience, even though we came from Pilrig and he supported Hibs since the 40's he waited it out.
All it took was one dull knock to the head and it's been Hibs ever since!

[Hibrandenburg]

Just to be absolutely clear here, I am not Speedy's dad.

:faf:

[Cataplana]

Hi guys, I made it pretty clear what my thoughts are on the disappearance previously. For the moment though, I'd like to play Devil's Advocate.

As I didn't watch the last three programmes in Netflix series (I felt I had seen enough to know where it was going) I am not up to speed with what plans are in place to keep looking for Madeleine. So there's a few questions I have.

Do you think the ongoing search is being organised efficiently?

Do you think that ultimately the search will prove fruitful and lead to the whereabouts of the child?

Where is the money coming from for the search?

Do you think the £12m invested by the UK taxpayer in supporting the PJ is justified? (Operation Grange, the Scotland Yard operation set up for this purpose.)

Is there any need for the officers to continue to be based in Portugal, if the search is global now?

Would you be happy to donate to the Madeleine fund yourself, given that there has been no accountability for money spent so far?

Is Gerry right in saying that any questions asked about what happened in Praia da Luz distracts from the ongoing search?

Obviously there's a lot of questions there, but I think some of them are worth considering. Thank you for the fair hearing on here so far, it is refreshing to discuss the case without being accused of hating the McCanns, or being a vile internet troll, for raising unanswered questions I have.

[matty_f]

You don't think the McCanns have been slaughtered on social media?? They have been hung, drawn and quartered by many who want them to be guilty of something untoward simply because of their nice, well educated middle class image. People like that, in the view of those only too willing to jump on a wild conspiracy theory, are fair game for endless abuse.

Quite how any can seriously believe the Madeleine's parents have managed to cover up her disappearance for so many years, while all the while keeping the other seven adults who were with them that night onside, is mind-boggling.

Somebody else has raised the 'kidnapping' of the 'working class' Shannon Matthews. In what way was that any less sympathetically dealt with by the media? It was national news for days until the pitiful truth emerged.

Class should play no part in this tragic story.

Excellent post.

[matty_f]

Hi guys, I made it pretty clear what my thoughts are on the disappearance previously. For the moment though, I'd like to play Devil's Advocate.

As I didn't watch the last three programmes in Netflix series (I felt I had seen enough to know where it was going) I am not up to speed with what plans are in place to keep looking for Madeleine. So there's a few questions I have.

Do you think the ongoing search is being organised efficiently? - I don't think I'm well placed to say, to answer that with any degree of authority you'd need to have a knowledge of how an efficient search is conducted. Given she could, in theory, be anywhere on the planet there are probably a variety of equally efficient ways to search. I would say that there is no evidence that I know of to say that it is being conducted inefficiently.

Do you think that ultimately the search will prove fruitful and lead to the whereabouts of the child? - No, my guess is that unless there's a quirk of fate or a confession from someone (as there was with the case of Ben, the little boy lost in Greece whose fate was discovered fairly recently, or the missing boy that turned up in the US having escapted his kidnappers some years later) then she won't be found. Doesn't mean they should stop looking, though.

Where is the money coming from for the search? I don't know/don't care. It has to be funded from somewhere and I think victims of crime (in the interests of innocent until proven guilty) should have the support of society, so if it's tax-payer money then I am 100% ok with that.

Do you think the £12m invested by the UK taxpayer in supporting the PJ is justified? (Operation Grange, the Scotland Yard operation set up for this purpose.) - Yes. If I was in the horrendously unfortunate position to have one of my children missing, I would think that every single penny would be justified, so I feel the same for someone else's child. There's a reasonable chance that the case is linked to international human trafficking, in which case it's even more justified.

Is there any need for the officers to continue to be based in Portugal, if the search is global now? There's more reason for them to be based in Portugal than in any other country given that was where the incident happened.

Would you be happy to donate to the Madeleine fund yourself, given that there has been no accountability for money spent so far? Yes.

Is Gerry right in saying that any questions asked about what happened in Praia da Luz distracts from the ongoing search? Initial thoughts are no - how could *any* question detract from the search? However he could be completely correct depending on the context in which it was said and the intention behind the statement.

Obviously there's a lot of questions there, but I think some of them are worth considering. Thank you for the fair hearing on here so far, it is refreshing to discuss the case without being accused of hating the McCanns, or being a vile internet troll, for raising unanswered questions I have.

I've answered them as I see it just now.

[bigwheel]

Hi guys, I made it pretty clear what my thoughts are on the disappearance previously. For the moment though, I'd like to play Devil's Advocate.

As I didn't watch the last three programmes in Netflix series (I felt I had seen enough to know where it was going) I am not up to speed with what plans are in place to keep looking for Madeleine. So there's a few questions I have.

Do you think the ongoing search is being organised efficiently? NO IDEA

Do you think that ultimately the search will prove fruitful and lead to the whereabouts of the child? NO

Where is the money coming from for the search? DON'T CARE - NOT IMPORTANT TO ME

Do you think the £12m invested by the UK taxpayer in supporting the PJ is justified? (Operation Grange, the Scotland Yard operation set up for this purpose.). IF THEY FELT THEY HAD A CHANCE OF RESOLUTION, YES

Is there any need for the officers to continue to be based in Portugal, if the search is global now? TACTICAL DECISION BY THE POLICE - NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT

Would you be happy to donate to the Madeleine fund yourself, given that there has been no accountability for money spent so far? YES

Is Gerry right in saying that any questions asked about what happened in Praia da Luz distracts from the ongoing search? THS FEELS LIKE YOU ARE USING A COMMENT OUT OF CONTEXT (A TACTIC THAT COMES OVER BIAS/WITH AGENDA) I"M SURE, LIKE ANY PARENT, HE WOULD SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT HELPED RESOLUTION

Obviously there's a lot of questions there, but I think some of them are worth considering. Thank you for the fair hearing on here so far, it is refreshing to discuss the case without being accused of hating the McCanns, or being a vile internet troll, for raising unanswered questions I have.

Answers in bold..

[Cataplana]

Answers in bold..

Thanks.

The reason I raised the point about distracting from the search is that was the reason given repeatedly about why they wouldn't answer PJ questions, and was the reason given for them not participating in the programme.

I just wondered if the questions being asked about their story have any influence on whether people think the search should continue. If it does, I think the least they should do is give an explanation of how the fund has been used up until now, as many believe the bulk of it has been spent fighting legal actions against people they consider "unhelpful."

Personally, I feel anything that draws attention to the case, must be helpful. It keeps Madeleine's name to the fore, which was the aim of K & G all along. It seems from what I've read on here that discussing the abduction / cover up theory has been helpful for many and has raised sympathy for the McCanns.

[MrRobot]

You don't think the McCanns have been slaughtered on social media?? They have been hung, drawn and quartered by many who want them to be guilty of something untoward simply because of their nice, well educated middle class image. People like that, in the view of those only too willing to jump on a wild conspiracy theory, are fair game for endless abuse.

Quite how any can seriously believe the Madeleine's parents have managed to cover up her disappearance for so many years, while all the while keeping the other seven adults who were with them that night onside, is mind-boggling.

Somebody else has raised the 'kidnapping' of the 'working class' Shannon Matthews. In what way was that any less sympathetically dealt with by the media? It was national news for days until the pitiful truth emerged.

Class should play no part in this tragic story.

Or maybe leaving their daughter on her own in a foreign country while they went drinking is the reason? The two of them should have faced punishment for neglecting their children.

[bigwheel]

Or maybe leaving their daughter on her own in a foreign country while they went drinking is the reason? The two of them should have faced punishment for neglecting their children.

You don’t think they’ve had the worst lifelong punishment any parent can imagine ??

[Cataplana]

You don’t think they’ve had the worst lifelong punishment any parent can imagine ??

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?

[matty_f]

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?

i honestly don't want to sound disrespectful but that post is so full of holes and skewed logic.

The student loan quote that you use - the point they were making was that they had exhausted all their emotions and had passed the point where they had anything left (like when someone had used up their student loan and were now in the red). They're basically saying that they were emotionally overdrawn.
It's not a great analogy but they're not likening how they felt to how they would feel if they had overspent on their loan.

100% if someone in Amaral's position was publicly and (as has been evidenced) baselessly accussing me of effectively being culpable at best if not complicit in the murder of my child at the same time as I needed people to still be looking for that child, I would be taking legal action as far as I possibly could against them.

It's a horrendous allegation to make, and if he could back it up then he should have charged them and taken them to court. He was the in charge of the investigation so he either had enough evidence or he didn't, and if he didn't he can't then go around saying they did it.

As for Gerry moving on in his career, so what? Maybe he threw himself into that to try and stop himself getting seriously ill with the mental toll that the situation would undoubtedly have taken.

Maybe he's exceptional at his job and used his own loss as motivation to be better at helping others.

It's certainly not an indicator of a guilty conscience, and it's almost absurd to link the two things.

And as for the blog - if I felt that my writing was doing more harm than good then I'd stop, and if I felt someone else was willfully misrepresenting the blogs then 100% I would take steps to stop them from reproducing my work.

Again, I think this is a perfectly reasonable step to take and think it's more unusual to think that someone would allow their work to be used in a way that portrays them as responsible for the death of their child.

[Cataplana]

i honestly don't want to sound disrespectful but that post is so full of holes and skewed logic.

The student loan quote that you use - the point they were making was that they had exhausted all their emotions and had passed the point where they had anything left (like when someone had used up their student loan and were now in the red). They're basically saying that they were emotionally overdrawn.
It's not a great analogy but they're not likening how they felt to how they would feel if they had overspent on their loan.

It is one of many things that they have said and done that have been commented on as appearing "odd". Taken in isolation they can be passed off as aberrations, nervous reactions, but over the last 12 years they have shown a pattern of insensitive, self centred behaviour and comments, leading many to say that they seem more interested in themselves than anyone else.

100% if someone in Amaral's position was publicly and (as has been evidenced) baselessly accussing me of effectively being culpable at best if not complicit in the murder of my child at the same time as I needed people to still be looking for that child, I would be taking legal action as far as I possibly could against them.

He gave his opinion of the evidence gathered, it wasn't baseless it was based on information that is publicly available, and has been translated from Portuguese into English. The Supreme Court in Lisbon declared he had done nothing wrong, and also went to the extraordinary length of stating that the McCanns are still under investigation.

My point though is this. I have read Kate's book, as I am interested in the case. I matched it to what I have read elsewhere and reached my own conclusions, which I concede are pretty obvious from what I write. What harm is there in allowing people to see what he said about them, if they are innocent, it will become all too apparent, and would surely be advantageous to the search?

There is no such thing as bad publicity, and publicity was central to the McCann strategy for finding Maddie. As early as two weeks after the disappearance, Gerry had been making plans for a Live Aid style concert to keep the story live - a year in advance. Another strange one for me, you are already thinking a year ahead, and it's only two weeks since the wee girl disappeared?

It's a horrendous allegation to make, and if he could back it up then he should have charged them and taken them to court. He was the in charge of the investigation so he either had enough evidence or he didn't, and if he didn't he can't then go around saying they did it.

Don't want to go too deep into conspiracy theories, but the political involvement in the case might be one reason he was taken off it, so far into the investigation. The information is available in the PJ files online, and I also recommend reading a translation of his book - if only to hear his side of the story, before judging him.

As for Gerry moving on in his career, so what? Maybe he threw himself into that to try and stop himself getting seriously ill with the mental toll that the situation would undoubtedly have taken.

Maybe he did, and as I say it was a super human feat to have that level of detachment from his daughter's disappearance. You are effectively saying he gave up the search, we can't say what we would do in the circumstances, however I think it was a remarkable feat, by, any measure.

Maybe he's exceptional at his job and used his own loss as motivation to be better at helping others.

It's certainly not an indicator of a guilty conscience, and it's almost absurd to link the two things.

It is not almost absurd Matty, it is something the police do all the time. Compare how most people would act, and how the suspect it acting.

And as for the blog - if I felt that my writing was doing more harm than good then I'd stop, and if I felt someone else was willfully misrepresenting the blogs then 100% I would take steps to stop them from reproducing my work.

It was certainly doing his credibility harm! It's an interesting thing about the McCanns that any questioning of their narrative inevitably leads to claims of harassment, jealousy, hate, and trolling. If he had nothing to hide, why stop?

Again, I think this is a perfectly reasonable step to take and think it's more unusual to think that someone would allow their work to be used in a way that portrays them as responsible for the death of their child.

I didn't say it did. I am pointing to their unusual behaviour (IMO) and questioning why they are more interested in suing people than searching. You are making far too many allowances for them, and I wonder if you are doing so from a Devil's Advocate position? Anyway thank you for an honest approach Twhich is a refreshing change from debating this case on some of the forums, it is nice to be able to talk about it without having my own personal motivation brought into question. I'm curious, not malicious.



See above.

F
Or maybe leaving their daughter on her own in a foreign country while they went drinking is the reason? The two of them should have faced punishment for neglecting their children.

There is a record in the PJ files from a neighbour that a child had been crying in an apartment in that block for 90 minutes. The crying stopped, when (presumably) her parents came home at 11:57.

McCanns deny it happened, but it was in their block.


You don't think the McCanns have been slaughtered on social media?? They have been hung, drawn and quartered by many who want them to be guilty of something untoward simply because of their nice, well educated middle class image. People like that, in the view of those only too willing to jump on a wild conspiracy theory, are fair game for endless abuse.

Quite how any can seriously believe the Madeleine's parents have managed to cover up her disappearance for so many years, while all the while keeping the other seven adults who were with them that night onside, is mind-boggling.

Somebody else has raised the 'kidnapping' of the 'working class' Shannon Matthews. In what way was that any less sympathetically dealt with by the media? It was national news for days until the pitiful truth emerged.

Class should play no part in this tragic story.

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?

[Cataplana]

Sorry guys, too much time on my hands today! I came across this interesting piece on the lack of charges for neglect.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/

I just wonder who gave them the idea that all British parents behave like this. Was it a press officer, a politician, the consul, who?

[bigwheel]

See above.

F

There is a record in the PJ files from a neighbour that a child had been crying in an apartment in that block for 90 minutes. The crying stopped, when (presumably) her parents came home at 11:57.

McCanns deny it happened, but it was in their block.



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.

They are masters at playing the victim card.

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?

Alternatively, Are you not more likely to want a lawyer with you than a PR person if you have done something wrong ?

[Cataplana]

Alternatively, Are you not more likely to want a lawyer with you than a PR person if you have done something wrong ?

You would think.

[bigwheel]

You would think.

Doesn’t that contradict your point then ?

[Cataplana]

Doesn’t that contradict your point then ?

Depends on how they decided to fight the case. Maybe they thought their only hope was to manipulate public opinion by making them looking like victims of malicious police.

I guess only they can answer.

[bigwheel]

Depends on how they decided to fight the case. Maybe they thought their only hope was to manipulate public opinion by making them looking like victims of malicious police.

I guess only they can answer.

They have answered. You don’t believe them ..that’s fine - many don’t

I’m simply pointing out that your assertion of not taking a lawyer doesn’t stack up ..if you were guilty that would be the first thing most people would lean on ...

Keeping the public onside in a hunt for a missing child is key - why wouldn’t they prioritise that if they knew they were innocent..critical and smart choice ..

[Cataplana]

They have answered. You don’t believe them ..that’s fine - many don’t

I’m simply pointing out that your assertion of not taking a lawyer doesn’t stack up ..if you were guilty that would be the first thing most people would lean on ...

Keeping the public onside in a hunt for a missing child is key - why wouldn’t they prioritise that if they knew they were innocent..critical and smart choice ..

It's important that we remember that Kate did not answer any of the questions that might have helped the police in their search for her child. Fair enough there might have been a breakdown in trust on the McCann side, that the police were not up to the job (they would say that, wouldn't they), but let's not lose sight of the fact she did not fully co operate.

You talk about prioritising, and this brings us back to who was actually in charge of the hunt for the child, the McCanns, or the Police? You can interpret their actions charitably, or you can interpret them as being designed to take the search as far away from them as possible.

The narrative that the PJ was some hick town police force, like something out of Heartbeat, has been debunked by the detailed records they have released to the public online. Police commentators have stated what they did was consistent with a good investigation.

Only they can say why these things happened, you read the information you decide for yourself which version you believe. Just like you decide whether parents desperate to find their child would start building a fund for "legal costs" as Kate's Uncle admitted two weeks in.

You wonder where they get the money to pay for the many legal actions they have raised, and question whether that was what the fund was for. o silence anyone who questions their suspicious behaviour (remember it was experienced law officers that raised the suspicion, not wack a doodles on the internet.)?

I am not saying disregard your feelings about what their motives were, but thinking that they were decent people, and they could not do such a thing doesn't cut it. Every time parents are involved in harm to a child, we say "how could they", and then realise that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things.

I often play Devil's Advocate with the case, and go over those 48 questions. I try to find plausible answers to them that would support their case rather than what I believe.

Heres' a couple of the things Kate wouldn't answer. Why wouldn't she answer? An innocent person would have no difficulty in answering them.



1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

[matty_f]

It's important that we remember that Kate did not answer any of the questions that might have helped the police in their search for her child. Fair enough there might have been a breakdown in trust on the McCann side, that the police were not up to the job (they would say that, wouldn't they), but let's not lose sight of the fact she did not fully co operate.

You talk about prioritising, and this brings us back to who was actually in charge of the hunt for the child, the McCanns, or the Police? You can interpret their actions charitably, or you can interpret them as being designed to take the search as far away from them as possible.

The narrative that the PJ was some hick town police force, like something out of Heartbeat, has been debunked by the detailed records they have released to the public online. Police commentators have stated what they did was consistent with a good investigation.

Only they can say why these things happened, you read the information you decide for yourself which version you believe. Just like you decide whether parents desperate to find their child would start building a fund for "legal costs" as Kate's Uncle admitted two weeks in.

You wonder where they get the money to pay for the many legal actions they have raised, and question whether that was what the fund was for. o silence anyone who questions their suspicious behaviour (remember it was experienced law officers that raised the suspicion, not wack a doodles on the internet.)?

I am not saying disregard your feelings about what their motives were, but thinking that they were decent people, and they could not do such a thing doesn't cut it. Every time parents are involved in harm to a child, we say "how could they", and then realise that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things.

I often play Devil's Advocate with the case, and go over those 48 questions. I try to find plausible answers to them that would support their case rather than what I believe.

Heres' a couple of the things Kate wouldn't answer. Why wouldn't she answer? An innocent person would have no difficulty in answering them.



1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?




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.

[bigwheel]

It's important that we remember that Kate did not answer any of the questions that might have helped the police in their search for her child. Fair enough there might have been a breakdown in trust on the McCann side, that the police were not up to the job (they would say that, wouldn't they), but let's not lose sight of the fact she did not fully co operate.

You talk about prioritising, and this brings us back to who was actually in charge of the hunt for the child, the McCanns, or the Police? You can interpret their actions charitably, or you can interpret them as being designed to take the search as far away from them as possible.

The narrative that the PJ was some hick town police force, like something out of Heartbeat, has been debunked by the detailed records they have released to the public online. Police commentators have stated what they did was consistent with a good investigation.

Only they can say why these things happened, you read the information you decide for yourself which version you believe. Just like you decide whether parents desperate to find their child would start building a fund for "legal costs" as Kate's Uncle admitted two weeks in.

You wonder where they get the money to pay for the many legal actions they have raised, and question whether that was what the fund was for. o silence anyone who questions their suspicious behaviour (remember it was experienced law officers that raised the suspicion, not wack a doodles on the internet.)?

I am not saying disregard your feelings about what their motives were, but thinking that they were decent people, and they could not do such a thing doesn't cut it. Every time parents are involved in harm to a child, we say "how could they", and then realise that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things.

I often play Devil's Advocate with the case, and go over those 48 questions. I try to find plausible answers to them that would support their case rather than what I believe.

Heres' a couple of the things Kate wouldn't answer. Why wouldn't she answer? An innocent person would have no difficulty in answering them.



1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?




You’d be a whole lot more complellingif you played devils advocate on the police ..too slanted and too much “conspiracy assumptions” for me ...

[Sioux]

Sorry guys, too much time on my hands today! I came across this interesting piece on the lack of charges for neglect.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1151476/revealed-why-the-portuguese-police-didnt-charge-mccanns-for-childrens-abandonment-after-maddie-disappeared/

I just wonder who gave them the idea that all British parents behave like this. Was it a press officer, a politician, the consul, who?

You think the McCanns were responsible for the death of their daughter. Why not just leave it at that instead of your obsessive crusade to 'prove' you're right?

You even gave up with the documentary half way through because you'd already decided they were guilty.

Quite pathetic really.

[matty_f]

You’d be a whole lot more complellingif you played devils advocate on the police ..too slanted and too much “conspiracy assumptions” for me ...

Tend to agree with this.

For me, and I've said this already I think, there have been numerous police agencies and staff looking at the case.

They have looked specifically for evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann were responsible for the disappearance and potentially the murder of their daughter.

As things stand, there is no evidence of her murder. There is no body and no matched DNA (that I'm aware of) that points to Madeleine having been killed.

There were no witnesses or accounts of them disposing of a body.

If anything - the theory that the McCanns killed or were responsible for Madeleines' disappearance should be the easiest of all the theories to prove.

The police have access to the alleged site of death, the suspects, potential witnesses etc and yet despite all of that, they could not build a case to prosecute the McCanns.

[Cataplana]

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.

Yes, and as part of a formal interview, as a result of dog alerts pointing the finger of suspicion, I would think failure to answer would look suspicious. The rest of the group all answered the questions.


You’d be a whole lot more complellingif you played devils advocate on the police ..too slanted and too much “conspiracy assumptions” for me ...

I don't have to play Devil's Advocate here, as the McCann case is being put by others! I do it myself, and I said earlier, I am not so naïve as to think the police were not under pressure to solve the case, or that police do frame people. On the balance of all the probabilities, I don't think the pressure on the police to solve the case, was as big as the pressure on the McCanns to clear their name.

That was their own doing by repeated suspicious behaviour, and the alerts from the dogs.



You think the McCanns were responsible for the death of their daughter. Why not just leave it at that instead of your obsessive crusade to 'prove' you're right?

You even gave up with the documentary half way through because you'd already decided they were guilty.

Quite pathetic really.

Oh, it's got to that stage?

In other words, shut up troll, they are good people and you are a bad person for doubting them?

How is it an obsessive crusade? I didn't even start the thread, I come on and discuss different points with other contributors. We manage that pretty well and in a civilised manner, given the circumstances. Then this, wtf?

If you want to make some points, or deconstruct some of mine go ahead, but making a personal attack is a bit off.

I gave up with the documentary, because it wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know, because I have researched the case elsewhere. I prefer to look at source material rather than make up my mind on things from a TV programme.

[Cataplana]

Tend to agree with this.

For me, and I've said this already I think, there have been numerous police agencies and staff looking at the case.

They have looked specifically for evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann were responsible for the disappearance and potentially the murder of their daughter.

As things stand, there is no evidence of her murder. There is no body and no matched DNA (that I'm aware of) that points to Madeleine having been killed.

There were no witnesses or accounts of them disposing of a body.

(Sorry for all the typos, I'm wearing the wife's specs.)

If anything - the theory that the McCanns killed or were responsible for Madeleines' disappearance should be the easiest of all the theories to prove.

The police have access to the alleged site of death, the suspects, potential witnesses etc and yet despite all of that, they could not build a case to prosecute the McCanns.

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.

[matty_f]

Yes, and as part of a formal interview, as a result of dog alerts pointing the finger of suspicion, I would think failure to answer would look suspicious. The rest of the group all answered the questions.



I don't have to play Devil's Advocate here, as the McCann case is being put by others! I do it myself, and I said earlier, I am not so naïve as to think the police were not under pressure to solve the case, or that police do frame people. On the balance of all the probabilities, I don't think the pressure on the police to solve the case, was as big as the pressure on the McCanns to clear their name.

That was their own doing by repeated suspicious behaviour, and the alerts from the dogs.



Oh, it's got to that stage?

In other words, shut up troll, they are good people and you are a bad person for doubting them?

How is it an obsessive crusade? I didn't even start the thread.

I gave up with the documentary, because it wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know, because I have researched the case elsewhere. I prefer to look at source material rather than make up my mind on things from a TV programme.

And this is where I find flaws in the arguments - if someone asks why didn't she answer questions about the disappearance then it rightly throws her motives into question.

Asking the question with the context that she had already given answers and refused to answer them again while considered a suspect, then it's a different kettle of fish.

I don't know if you watch 24 Hours in Police Custody - the lawyers invariably advise their clients (whether innocent or guilty at the point of interview) to give "no comment" answers.

Like using the "going in the red in your student loan" as a potenial sign that the weren't as emotional about the situation as one might expect, but either wilfully missing the point they were making or providing the statement out of context.

You can pick apart single bits of any situation and present them in a way which manipulates the opinion of the person you're presenting them to.

"The dogs signalled the scent of death in the McCann's room." sounds like a potential smoking gun in the case.

"The dogs signalled the scent of death in the McCann's room, but there was no DNA found to link that scent to Madeleine McCann and the dogs can sniff death from up to 40 years ago" makes that much less of a smoking gun.

"The dog sniffed blood on the McCann's hire car" is pretty damning.

"The dog sniffed blood on the McCann's hire car, which they hired weeks after Madeleine went missing, and there was no blood sample DNA match with Madeleine found in forensic tests" paints the significance of the dog's signal in a much different light.

"The McCanns were more worried about how they looked to the public than defending themselves and that is shown by the fact theat they took a PR person rather than a lawyer" is a very definite angle compared to "The McCanns had no guilt about being involved in her murder so didn't feel a lawyer was necessary when they met the police".

"Gerry McCann shut down people quoting his blog" is different to "Gerry McCann shut down people quoting his blog in an attempt to paint him as a murderer".

[Cataplana]

And this is where I find flaws in the arguments - if someone asks why didn't she answer questions about the disappearance then it rightly throws her motives into question.

Asking the question with the context that she had already given answers and refused to answer them again while considered a suspect, then it's a different kettle of fish.

I don't know if you watch 24 Hours in Police Custody - the lawyers invariably advise their clients (whether innocent or guilty at the point of interview) to give "no comment" answers.

Like using the "going in the red in your student loan" as a potenial sign that the weren't as emotional about the situation as one might expect, but either wilfully missing the point they were making or providing the statement out of context.

You can pick apart single bits of any situation and present them in a way which manipulates the opinion of the person you're presenting them to.

"The dogs signalled the scent of death in the McCann's room." sounds like a potential smoking gun in the case.

"The dogs signalled the scent of death in the McCann's room, but there was no DNA found to link that scent to Madeleine McCann and the dogs can sniff death from up to 40 years ago" makes that much less of a smoking gun.

"The dog sniffed blood on the McCann's hire car" is pretty damning.

"The dog sniffed blood on the McCann's hire car, which they hired weeks after Madeleine went missing, and there was no blood sample DNA match with Madeleine found in forensic tests" paints the significance of the dog's signal in a much different light.

"The McCanns were more worried about how they looked to the public than defending themselves and that is shown by the fact theat they took a PR person rather than a lawyer" is a very definite angle compared to "The McCanns had no guilt about being involved in her murder so didn't feel a lawyer was necessary when they met the police".

"Gerry McCann shut down people quoting his blog" is different to "Gerry McCann shut down people quoting his blog in an attempt to paint him as a murderer".

Absolutely right, Matty. I was being sincere in saying it is good to discuss things on here with people coming at it with an open mind.

There are people out there that analyse every nuance in the story, and come out with outrageous suggestions. One of the crazier ones I read recently was that Gerry McCann has information about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Aparently this is how he was able to mobilise government and media so quickly, and is confirmed by the fact that he met Gordon Brown and Prince Charles when he returned to the UK from Portugal!

Other whackos analyse photographs and start saying that the girl died on the Sunday after arrival, because it is clear that the pictures are doctored. They then bring in some stuff about the McCann extended family, and how one guy is a photographic expert and perfectly capable of doing this.

Every answer that you come up with on this case involves a leap of faith. There are no clear cut answers, just suspicions. We don't convict on circumstantial evidence in this country (I think), as it leads to whispering campaigns and doubt thereafter.

[G B Young]

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.

[matty_f]

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.

[Cataplana]

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?

[matty_f]

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.

[Cataplana]

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?

[Cataplana]

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 naïve to think that politics didn't come into it, and it would be equally naïve 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.

[matty_f]

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 naïve to think that politics didn't come into it, and it would be equally naïve 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.

[Cataplana]

Apologies, you didn't say they were murderers.

Thanks, I'll let you off this time. :greengrin

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.

[Hibrandenburg]

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.

[Cataplana]

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.

[One Day Soon]

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.

[bigwheel]

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?

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

[Cataplana]

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.

[Cataplana]

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.

I've left this reply a couple of days, as once I looked up the meaning of the word prurient, I found your post rather sickening. On reflection though, I remind myself that the things people say about themselves are rarely true, and the things they say about others tell us more about them than anyone else.

I'm sure there's a rule against personal attacks on here, but I certainly am not going to grass you up. Opinion is what it is all about.

I do wonder if you are trying to close down discussion on this case by playing the man instead of the ball? Because suggesting that I get some sort of sexual kicks out of discussing it is a pretty vile thing to say to anyone. Of course, it posts the message to anyone else that is thinking of contributing that they will be tarred with the same brush.

There is no conspiracy theory at all in the points I am trying to get across. I am relaying the opinions of the detective who was investigating the case, nothing that is in his book is not available on public record.

No more conspiracy than discussing the deaths of Bradley Welsh, or Alisha McPhail. It's what people do when a crime is committed. So, what has irked you so much about my contribution on here?

It's been observed that the McCanns haven't shown any guilt, or remorse, at all for what happened. They pass blame onto anybody that they can rather than hold their own hands up - in Kate's book she has the cheek to blame the Ocean Club, for not making parents aware of the risks in leaving their children alone.

Different people can make different assumptions about how they have behaved. It is all subjective, and the reason I joined this discussion is that I felt that there is more information out there than was shown on Netflix.

I did expect attacks from people like you, it's actually refreshing how reasonable people have been when discussing it though. Can I just point out that it wasn't me who started the thread, I didn't raise the matter of how plausible the Netflix documentary is. Does that mean that you think everyone else that is discussing the case is a "prurient conspiracy theorist"?

Trying to whip up hysteria against people who see gaping holes in the story isn't going to work. It will make them smell an even bigger rat than the one that's out there at the moment. Rather like taking your blog offline because people start to get an insight into your personality, and start to see gaping holes in your story.

[Allant1981]

I've left this reply a couple of days, as once I looked up the meaning of the word prurient, I found your post rather sickening. On reflection though, I remind myself that the things people say about themselves are rarely true, and the things they say about others tell us more about them than anyone else.

I'm sure there's a rule against personal attacks on here, but I certainly am not going to grass you up. Opinion is what it is all about.

I do wonder if you are trying to close down discussion on this case by playing the man instead of the ball? Because suggesting that I get some sort of sexual kicks out of discussing it is a pretty vile thing to say to anyone. Of course, it posts the message to anyone else that is thinking of contributing that they will be tarred with the same brush.

There is no conspiracy theory at all in the points I am trying to get across. I am relaying the opinions of the detective who was investigating the case, nothing that is in his book is not available on public record.

No more conspiracy than discussing the deaths of Bradley Welsh, or Alisha McPhail. It's what people do when a crime is committed. So, what has irked you so much about my contribution on here?

It's been observed that the McCanns haven't shown any guilt, or remorse, at all for what happened. They pass blame onto anybody that they can rather than hold their own hands up - in Kate's book she has the cheek to blame the Ocean Club, for not making parents aware of the risks in leaving their children alone.

Different people can make different assumptions about how they have behaved. It is all subjective, and the reason I joined this discussion is that I felt that there is more information out there than was shown on Netflix.

I did expect attacks from people like you, it's actually refreshing how reasonable people have been when discussing it though. Can I just point out that it wasn't me who started the thread, I didn't raise the matter of how plausible the Netflix documentary is. Does that mean that you think everyone else that is discussing the case is a "prurient conspiracy theorist"?

Trying to whip up hysteria against people who see gaping holes in the story isn't going to work. It will make them smell an even bigger rat than the one that's out there at the moment. Rather like taking your blog offline because people start to get an insight into your personality, and start to see gaping holes in your story.

Mate you really need to get a new hobby

[One Day Soon]

I've left this reply a couple of days, as once I looked up the meaning of the word prurient, I found your post rather sickening. On reflection though, I remind myself that the things people say about themselves are rarely true, and the things they say about others tell us more about them than anyone else.

I'm sure there's a rule against personal attacks on here, but I certainly am not going to grass you up. Opinion is what it is all about.

I do wonder if you are trying to close down discussion on this case by playing the man instead of the ball? Because suggesting that I get some sort of sexual kicks out of discussing it is a pretty vile thing to say to anyone. Of course, it posts the message to anyone else that is thinking of contributing that they will be tarred with the same brush.

There is no conspiracy theory at all in the points I am trying to get across. I am relaying the opinions of the detective who was investigating the case, nothing that is in his book is not available on public record.

No more conspiracy than discussing the deaths of Bradley Welsh, or Alisha McPhail. It's what people do when a crime is committed. So, what has irked you so much about my contribution on here?

It's been observed that the McCanns haven't shown any guilt, or remorse, at all for what happened. They pass blame onto anybody that they can rather than hold their own hands up - in Kate's book she has the cheek to blame the Ocean Club, for not making parents aware of the risks in leaving their children alone.

Different people can make different assumptions about how they have behaved. It is all subjective, and the reason I joined this discussion is that I felt that there is more information out there than was shown on Netflix.

I did expect attacks from people like you, it's actually refreshing how reasonable people have been when discussing it though. Can I just point out that it wasn't me who started the thread, I didn't raise the matter of how plausible the Netflix documentary is. Does that mean that you think everyone else that is discussing the case is a "prurient conspiracy theorist"?

Trying to whip up hysteria against people who see gaping holes in the story isn't going to work. It will make them smell an even bigger rat than the one that's out there at the moment. Rather like taking your blog offline because people start to get an insight into your personality, and start to see gaping holes in your story.


You asked why he might have removed the blog. My first sentence gave you a suggestion as to why. Everything else that followed was my observations on the case generally, none of it was directed at you. If you have chosen to interpret it that way there's little I can do about that.

1. I haven't made a personal attack on you. I've taken issue with what you are arguing - that is contesting your viewpoint, not contesting you personally.
2. Read what I posted, I haven't accused you of anything except trying to demonstrate their culpability.
3. It is incontestable that most of the obsession with this case - particularly from the red tops - is prurient. That was phrased as a general observation not a personal attack.
4. I don't have the power or desire to close anybody down on any subject on .net, though that seems to be a fairly frequent accusation when people don't like what another poster is saying. This why we have admins.
5. I'm not trying to whip up hysteria on anything, I gave my perspective as a parent.

Knock yourself out.

[matty_f]

I've left this reply a couple of days, as once I looked up the meaning of the word prurient, I found your post rather sickening. On reflection though, I remind myself that the things people say about themselves are rarely true, and the things they say about others tell us more about them than anyone else.

I'm sure there's a rule against personal attacks on here, but I certainly am not going to grass you up. Opinion is what it is all about.

I do wonder if you are trying to close down discussion on this case by playing the man instead of the ball? Because suggesting that I get some sort of sexual kicks out of discussing it is a pretty vile thing to say to anyone. Of course, it posts the message to anyone else that is thinking of contributing that they will be tarred with the same brush.

There is no conspiracy theory at all in the points I am trying to get across. I am relaying the opinions of the detective who was investigating the case, nothing that is in his book is not available on public record.

No more conspiracy than discussing the deaths of Bradley Welsh, or Alisha McPhail. It's what people do when a crime is committed. So, what has irked you so much about my contribution on here?

It's been observed that the McCanns haven't shown any guilt, or remorse, at all for what happened. They pass blame onto anybody that they can rather than hold their own hands up - in Kate's book she has the cheek to blame the Ocean Club, for not making parents aware of the risks in leaving their children alone.

Different people can make different assumptions about how they have behaved. It is all subjective, and the reason I joined this discussion is that I felt that there is more information out there than was shown on Netflix.

I did expect attacks from people like you, it's actually refreshing how reasonable people have been when discussing it though. Can I just point out that it wasn't me who started the thread, I didn't raise the matter of how plausible the Netflix documentary is. Does that mean that you think everyone else that is discussing the case is a "prurient conspiracy theorist"?

Trying to whip up hysteria against people who see gaping holes in the story isn't going to work. It will make them smell an even bigger rat than the one that's out there at the moment. Rather like taking your blog offline because people start to get an insight into your personality, and start to see gaping holes in your story.

Undoubtedly the McCanns will feel guilty, but they are under zero obligation to anyone to live their lives showing how guilty they feel about their daughter's disappearance.

[Cataplana]

Mate you really need to get a new hobby

LOL, tell me about it. :greengrin


Undoubtedly the McCanns will feel guilty, but they are under zero obligation to anyone to live their lives showing how guilty they feel about their daughter's disappearance.

Undoubtedly is quite a stretch when many people seem to have reasonable doubts. I have no doubt that any reasonable person would, and suspect that their lives would be destroyed thereafter. I base this on the testimonies of so many other parents searching for their children, who have not had a fraction of the support that the McCanns have.

Ben Needham's mother asked, in the most humble way, why she could not have had the sort of input that has been focussed on Praia da Luz - £12 million and counting, with nothing to show for it.

I also think of people like Denise Bulger, her book was called "I Let Go of His Hand", who has been racked by guilt ever since, and contrast the devastation to her life with the way the McCanns have managed to get on with it, and can't help contasting the differences.

I think there might be an argument that having appealed to the public to such an extent, having raised money to search for Maddie, and having raised a legal action to protect their "hurt feelings" in Portugal, that they have invited some degree of scrutiny from others. Publicity was great when it was doing what they wanted it to do, but when awkward questions like "what have you spent the fund on" start to surface they play the victim card.

They can't have it both ways.

[Cataplana]

After reflecting on what Bigwheel said about the clear bias in my attempts to play Devil's Advocate, I thought it would be worthwhile taking Amaral to pieces using the information out there, and a bit of imagination.

It seems to me that the main question is who do you believe, the McCanns or Amaral? I have said plenty about Kate and Gerry and hopefully pointed people towards sceptical sites like this one: https://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/search/label/21%20Facts%20about%20the%20disappearance%20of%20Ma deleine%20McCann.

I'm afraid there aren't really equivalent sites, because I guess you are innocent until proven guilty, and responding to the points in them is always going to get the same response - "you would say that wouldn't you."


Amaral came to the case having been moved from a job in the Lisbon area to the relative backwater of the Algarve. As someone who had ambitions at one time, this must have been a bit of a slap in the face. No doubt he would wonder if it was punishment for his perjury conviction in the recent case of a missing child.

As soon as he arrived there, he found himself plunged into another missing child case. He could look at it two ways, "I must have really pissed God off, here we go again", or "OK big chance to get back on the career ladder, this is one that I am going to win."

He arrives at the scene to find out that the local plods, the GNR have done nothing to secure the scene, and the place is carnage. No reliable evidence can be gathered surely.

He is confronted by irate, distraught parents haranguing him that there daughter is missing, and the police are doing nothing to stop it. At least get onto the airport, seal off the bridge to Spain, put out road blocks etc. What does he think about that, who are they to be telling him how to do his job?

He starts off the case with his feelings of injustice stoked further. As the days turn into weeks, with no reliable leads and constant pressure from above (let's say the Ambassador to Portugal, is taking a lot of interest in the progress, due to the daily phone calls he is getting from the media, and politicians back home.)

It's turning into a nightmare, and the wife is not happy that she is having to find a new home for the family without her husband, in a town she doesn't know. Strain on the relationship will later lead her to file for divorce.

He starts to get desperate, and hauls in the dodgy looking neighbour, on the back of a tip off. He gets nowhere. Likewise with a young Russian who cannot be nailed for the case.

Things are getting out of hand, people want answers. In a last throw of the dice he turns the finger of suspicion on the child's parents, who knows it might be catharthic to have the show on the other foot as he faces his tormentors.

By this point he is being given assistance from UK police, having been accepted into the country by people above him, and working a very different operation from him, on his own patch. He asks if they can provide any dogs to search places associated with the McCanns.

After the dogs alert to suspicious scents, and bodily fluids are sent to Britain for testing, he takes his biggest gamble. He makes the parents persons of interest on the case, and brings them in for question.

Meanwhile he briefs journalists off the record that the DNA analysis is 100% that of the child.

Questioning the parents does not produce any progress, and he has to let them go. Shortly after they return to the UK, and he is removed from the case.

How does he feel now? His marriage is falling apart, he has been publicly humiliated due to his inablility to get a result, and moved to an office job in the PJ.

My guess is he thinks, "thanks a lot everybody, well sod this, I'm seeing to myself."

Having been tipped off that all the records for the case are going to be made public he decided to resign, and write a book. He's got pals in the press that can help him by ghosting it, and they can whip up support amongst the Portuguese public for one of their own.

As it turns out, the book sells well, and the man who did nothing to look for Maddie, is sitting pretty, whilst Kate and Gerry continue the search, hampered by his accusation that they had something to do with it.


There you are, that is pretty much the version that the McCann supporters put out. To me it comes down to a matter of who you trust, and to a large extent that will depend on your prejudices before you come to it.

[bigwheel]

After reflecting on what Bigwheel said about the clear bias in my attempts to play Devil's Advocate, I thought it would be worthwhile taking Amaral to pieces using the information out there, and a bit of imagination.

It seems to me that the main question is who do you believe, the McCanns or Amaral? I have said plenty about Kate and Gerry and hopefully pointed people towards sceptical sites like this one: https://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/search/label/21%20Facts%20about%20the%20disappearance%20of%20Ma deleine%20McCann.

I'm afraid there aren't really equivalent sites, because I guess you are innocent until proven guilty, and responding to the points in them is always going to get the same response - "you would say that wouldn't you."


Amaral came to the case having been moved from a job in the Lisbon area to the relative backwater of the Algarve. As someone who had ambitions at one time, this must have been a bit of a slap in the face. No doubt he would wonder if it was punishment for his perjury conviction in the recent case of a missing child.

As soon as he arrived there, he found himself plunged into another missing child case. He could look at it two ways, "I must have really pissed God off, here we go again", or "OK big chance to get back on the career ladder, this is one that I am going to win."

He arrives at the scene to find out that the local plods, the GNR have done nothing to secure the scene, and the place is carnage. No reliable evidence can be gathered surely.

He is confronted by irate, distraught parents haranguing him that there daughter is missing, and the police are doing nothing to stop it. At least get onto the airport, seal off the bridge to Spain, put out road blocks etc. What does he think about that, who are they to be telling him how to do his job?

He starts off the case with his feelings of injustice stoked further. As the days turn into weeks, with no reliable leads and constant pressure from above (let's say the Ambassador to Portugal, is taking a lot of interest in the progress, due to the daily phone calls he is getting from the media, and politicians back home.)

It's turning into a nightmare, and the wife is not happy that she is having to find a new home for the family without her husband, in a town she doesn't know. Strain on the relationship will later lead her to file for divorce.

He starts to get desperate, and hauls in the dodgy looking neighbour, on the back of a tip off. He gets nowhere. Likewise with a young Russian who cannot be nailed for the case.

Things are getting out of hand, people want answers. In a last throw of the dice he turns the finger of suspicion on the child's parents, who knows it might be catharthic to have the show on the other foot as he faces his tormentors.

By this point he is being given assistance from UK police, having been accepted into the country by people above him, and working a very different operation from him, on his own patch. He asks if they can provide any dogs to search places associated with the McCanns.

After the dogs alert to suspicious scents, and bodily fluids are sent to Britain for testing, he takes his biggest gamble. He makes the parents persons of interest on the case, and brings them in for question.

Meanwhile he briefs journalists off the record that the DNA analysis is 100% that of the child.

Questioning the parents does not produce any progress, and he has to let them go. Shortly after they return to the UK, and he is removed from the case.

How does he feel now? His marriage is falling apart, he has been publicly humiliated due to his inablility to get a result, and moved to an office job in the PJ.

My guess is he thinks, "thanks a lot everybody, well sod this, I'm seeing to myself."

Having been tipped off that all the records for the case are going to be made public he decided to resign, and write a book. He's got pals in the press that can help him by ghosting it, and they can whip up support amongst the Portuguese public for one of their own.

As it turns out, the book sells well, and the man who did nothing to look for Maddie, is sitting pretty, whilst Kate and Gerry continue the search, hampered by his accusation that they had something to do with it.


There you are, that is pretty much the version that the McCann supporters put out. To me it comes down to a matter of who you trust, and to a large extent that will depend on your prejudices before you come to it.




Fairdo's Cataplana....good to see you bring some alternative views...

will you go further - why did he lie about the 100% DNA, when it never was? What else did he lie about? what were his motives? ;-). I'm just teasing - interesting to see other elements of the story, and thanks for the additional insight..

Your point around prejudices is true - that happens in all cases doesn't it - often they are resolved somewhat by the truth emerging. Unfortunately, not in this case so far..

[Cataplana]

Fairdo's Cataplana....good to see you bring some alternative views...

will you go further - why did he lie about the 100% DNA, when it never was? What else did he lie about? what were his motives? ;-). I'm just teasing - interesting to see other elements of the story, and thanks for the additional insight..

Your point around prejudices is true - that happens in all cases doesn't it - often they are resolved somewhat by the truth emerging. Unfortunately, not in this case so far..

The simple and straightforward answer is he is a tosser (
© Kate McCann). This seems to be the only reason that they can see for him focussing on them rather than the abduction theory. They have constantly referred to him as a "thorn in their side", and have made it publicly know that they want him destroyed.

However, using my degree in criminology from the University of Rebus, the advantage I would see in lieing about the DNA would be that it would turn public opionion against his suspects, and also put more pressure on them to confess, if they had done it.

Other theories are that the lab in Britain possibly misled him, or even tampered with the results, due to political interference. Finally it's possible that there was some mix up in translation from "almost certain" to "100% certain."

It's worth pointing out that the dog trained to alert to blood alerted to the sample taken from the apartment, and that clever use of semantics has been used to throw us off the scent (pun not intended). The size of the sample is so small that it cannot be established that it is blood, so the term "bodily fluid" is used instead. If it isn't blood, what is it.

By emphasising the low quality of that sample, attention is diverted from the fact that the sample collected in the hire care has 17 out of 20 markers consistent with Madeleines DNA. In Portugal that would be admissible in court as Madeleine's DNA. If asked if it was her DNA you would be allowed to say with 100% certainty it is.

The subject of prejudice is one of the things that made me interested in this case. In May 2007 I had many other things on my mind, and took a passing interest in the headlines. However one of the things that made raise an eyebrow was the xenophobic and extremely personal attacks on the investigators.

As things moved on, and it looked like the parents would be arrested, then they were released, I thought "maybe the Portuguese cops are idiots". Years passed and it was when I heard that the parents had sued the cop and lost, that I took a keener interest.

I was in a position where I had a lot more time on my hands, and started to look into what it was all about. Once I found a translation of the book, I was hooked.

What is so unique about this case is that the PJ took the unusual step of releasing all records pertaining to the case to the public. It has drawn all sorts of people from the academic, to the downright mad and all shades in between. All trapped in this perpetual whodunnit, waiting for the final chapter to be published.

I can't think of another case like it, where almost every step has been played out in full view of the public. Firstly through the McCanns wishes to publicise the search, and then from the ability to constantly revisit and analyse every minutae of the case for so many people.

Back to the prejudices though, this article in The Portugal Resident is interesting in that it discusses the differing thoughts from the two countries. The British took liberties with Portuguese justice, and everything isn't as cordial as our press says.

https://www.portugalresident.com/2017/05/03/amaral-breaks-his-silence/

Anyway thanks for your patience. I found playing Devil's Advocate on Amaral a useful exercise, and I will return to the theme by doing the same for the McCanns at some point.

[bigwheel]

The simple and straightforward answer is he is a tosser (
© Kate McCann). This seems to be the only reason that they can see for him focussing on them rather than the abduction theory. They have constantly referred to him as a "thorn in their side", and have made it publicly know that they want him destroyed.

However, using my degree in criminology from the University of Rebus, the advantage I would see in lieing about the DNA would be that it would turn public opionion against his suspects, and also put more pressure on them to confess, if they had done it.

Other theories are that the lab in Britain possibly misled him, or even tampered with the results, due to political interference. Finally it's possible that there was some mix up in translation from "almost certain" to "100% certain."

It's worth pointing out that the dog trained to alert to blood alerted to the sample taken from the apartment, and that clever use of semantics has been used to throw us off the scent (pun not intended). The size of the sample is so small that it cannot be established that it is blood, so the term "bodily fluid" is used instead. If it isn't blood, what is it.

By emphasising the low quality of that sample, attention is diverted from the fact that the sample collected in the hire care has 17 out of 20 markers consistent with Madeleines DNA. In Portugal that would be admissible in court as Madeleine's DNA. If asked if it was her DNA you would be allowed to say with 100% certainty it is.

The subject of prejudice is one of the things that made me interested in this case. In May 2007 I had many other things on my mind, and took a passing interest in the headlines. However one of the things that made raise an eyebrow was the xenophobic and extremely personal attacks on the investigators.

As things moved on, and it looked like the parents would be arrested, then they were released, I thought "maybe the Portuguese cops are idiots". Years passed and it was when I heard that the parents had sued the cop and lost, that I took a keener interest.

I was in a position where I had a lot more time on my hands, and started to look into what it was all about. Once I found a translation of the book, I was hooked.

What is so unique about this case is that the PJ took the unusual step of releasing all records pertaining to the case to the public. It has drawn all sorts of people from the academic, to the downright mad and all shades in between. All trapped in this perpetual whodunnit, waiting for the final chapter to be published.

I can't think of another case like it, where almost every step has been played out in full view of the public. Firstly through the McCanns wishes to publicise the search, and then from the ability to constantly revisit and analyse every minutae of the case for so many people.

Back to the prejudices though, this article in The Portugal Resident is interesting in that it discusses the differing thoughts from the two countries. The British took liberties with Portuguese justice, and everything isn't as cordial as our press says.

https://www.portugalresident.com/2017/05/03/amaral-breaks-his-silence/

Anyway thanks for your patience. I found playing Devil's Advocate on Amaral a useful exercise, and I will return to the theme by doing the same for the McCanns at some point.

today's Britain...mostly fuelled by the media..anyone who is different is bad - on any topic

[Cataplana]

today's Britain...mostly fuelled by the media..anyone who is different is bad - on any topic

Yeah, stuff like this from the Telegraph
(think Hillsborough, think Orgreave - ring any bells).How to Win Friends and Influence People
(https://www.smh.com.au/world/anguished-parents-struggle-in-sea-of-despair-20070515-gdq519.html?page=3..)

[Smartie]

I've had a conversation with someone who used to edit one of the sections of the Sun.

It's quite interesting to hear how a paper takes it's editorial line on matters such as this.

Anyway, this guy was called, along with all of the other editors into a meeting with the editor proper.

They had a fairly intense debate that had started with the editor of the day going "right - the McCanns - innocent or guilty" and all of the various editors from politics to sports to features to showbiz all debated the line the paper should take, whether to vilify or defend the McCanns on the subject.

The chap in question is no longer in that line of work but it is pretty tough going when you are called in to contribute to such decision-making, especially when your own sphere of knowledge could be to do with something very different indeed.

It is also incredible how much weight these decisions can carry. The public can be very much influenced by the direct language but also by the indirect references.

[Cataplana]

I've had a conversation with someone who used to edit one of the sections of the Sun.

It's quite interesting to hear how a paper takes it's editorial line on matters such as this.

Anyway, this guy was called, along with all of the other editors into a meeting with the editor proper.

They had a fairly intense debate that had started with the editor of the day going "right - the McCanns - innocent or guilty" and all of the various editors from politics to sports to features to showbiz all debated the line the paper should take, whether to vilify or defend the McCanns on the subject.

The chap in question is no longer in that line of work but it is pretty tough going when you are called in to contribute to such decision-making, especially when your own sphere of knowledge could be to do with something very different indeed.

It is also incredible how much weight these decisions can carry. The public can be very much influenced by the direct language but also by the indirect references.

Which department in the Sun is responsible for fake news?

Same Old Sun Always Lying (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8916458/hope-new-dna-tech-could-help-crack-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-are-dashed-after-it-fails-to-produce-a-match/)

The DNA has not been tested by the new technique. At least, that's what they are saying in Portugal, and actually it's what the Sun's article says if you take a legal mind to every word they have written. What are they scared of, why are they not demanding that this new technique is used to clear their name, once and for all?

You'd make more sense reading trying to understand Portuguese.


Polícia inglesa ignorou oferta de investigador forense para analisar ADN de Maddie

English police ignore investigator's offer to forensically analyse Maddie's DNA. (https://www.cmjornal.pt/cm-ao-minuto/detalhe/policia-inglesa-ignorou-oferta-de-investigador-forense-para-analisar-adn-de-Maddie)

Of course, we know the Portuguese are incompetent liars.

And so are the Aussie's. (https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-dna-17-really-old-technology-perlin-maddie-podcast/f0d0f6bc-8c86-4bd7-8441-967e4c00761d)

It's the constant misrepresentation of facts by our tabloids, fed by "a source" that we really need to get a handle on. You'd think they had learned nothing from their lies and deception over Hillsborough, it looks like they think we haven't.

So let's keep our faith with our own newspapers, known the world over for their honesty, integrity and reliability.

It's the same bloody article in the Mirror! (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fresh-madeline-mccann-dna-hopes-14448137)

[Moulin Yarns]

I heard Christopher brookmyre talking about his latest book. Family on holiday on the algarve, someone goes missing. Not a direct parallel to the mccann case but the book deals with conspiracy theories.

The book is called Fallen Angel. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fallen-Angel-Chris-Brookmyre/dp/1408710838

[MrRobot]

You don’t think they’ve had the worst lifelong punishment any parent can imagine ??

If I crash my car through careless driving while my child is in the car and they die, should I be let off because I lost my child?

[JeMeSouviens]

If I crash my car through careless driving while my child is in the car and they die, should I be let off because I lost my child?

In that scenario, for most people, it really wouldn't matter: you're condemned to a life of torture either way. I guess there is the odd sociopath that doesn't cover but not many.

[bigwheel]

If I crash my car through careless driving while my child is in the car and they die, should I be let off because I lost my child?

Do you think a prison sentence would be the punishment that hurts most ?

[MrRobot]

Do you think a prison sentence would be the punishment that hurts most ?

Just because one hurts more than the other it doesnt take away the crime that has been

No of course not, losing a child must be one of the hardest things to ever have to go through, but that doesnt answer the question. Should I be let off because conviction and subsequent jail sentence dont hurt as much as losing the child that I caused the death of?

[bigwheel]

Well then we are in agreement - No one suggested letting anyone off...I was merely pointing out that just because a parent hasn’t been in prison , doesn’t mean they haven’t had a life sentence ....

[MrRobot]

Well then we are in agreement - No one suggested letting anyone off...I was merely pointing out that just because a parent hasn’t been in prison , doesn’t mean they haven’t had a life sentence ....

Ahh I get you now. Yeah you are absolutely correct, it would be a life sentence of mental torture.

[Cataplana]

Latest speculation suggests Operation Grange is about to wind up with charges to be levelled at a paedophile, currently serving time in a German jail.

We could be entering the end game.

[matty_f]

Latest speculation suggests Operation Grange is about to wind up with charges to be levelled at a paedophile, currently serving time in a German jail.

We could be entering the end game.

Where did you see that information, please? (I googled 'operation grange' but can't see anything confirming it, I'm not just being lazy, honest!)

[Cataplana]

Where did you see that information, please? (I googled 'operation grange' but can't see anything confirming it, I'm not just being lazy, honest!)

Hi Matty,

It was on one of the Aussie Channel 9 Podcasts. They did an interview with Amaral and he suggests that is the way Operation Grange will wind it up. If true, it will at least mean that a trial can take place (I hope) and all the evidence is investigated in court.

Hopefully it would bring the whole thing to a close - although if it is true it would be devestating for the parents, I'm sure. I guess the best they can hope for is closure.

[Cataplana]

Here's a link Matty: https://www.9news.com.au/world/maddie-podcast-episodes-what-happened-madeleine-mccann/42db9a1d-427c-4fd6-83eb-12dece8fad8f

Taking up my earlier promise to Bigwheel to do some Devil's Advocacy for the parents, here is what I can offer:

A lot of criticism on them focusses on their behaviour in the hours and weeks following their daughter's disappearance. In particular the way they were able to mobilise the media and gain political support at a time when many other people would be going to pieces.

Firstly, they are doctors. They are used to dealing with crisis situations in which objective minds, and clarity of thought are of the essence.

So, rather than panic they set their feelings aside and tried to develop the most effective way of finding their daughter. They maybe appreciated that an unco-ordinated search would be fruitless, and even that the chaos it generated could actually be counter productive.

They waited for the police to arrive in the expectation that these are things that they would surely have better experience of. They became frustrated with the police response, and very early on decided to take charge of the situation themselves.

They decided that the best time to be searching would be when the sun came up, and decided to make the most of the time they would have to wait until this was possible. Among other things they phoned family and friends at home.

One of these friends alerted GMTV, and the TV station thought the story newsworthy enough to send a crew over. Word of this quickly got out to other media outlets, and they descended on Praia da Luz to get their own scoops.

The friend who had alerted GMTV also happened to be a neighbour of Gordon Brown's brother. She bumped into him on the street (accidentally on purpose?) and asked if he could get the Chancellor to do anything.

The news got to Brown, who was soon to be PM, and wanting a cause to make him look like a nice bloke, particularly in middle England. Who knows, maybe he was genuinely moved, maybe not - but he gave support to the family and said he would do all he could to have her found.

True to his word, he dispatches the Ambassador to Prai da Luz, rather than the Consul - to show he is true to his word. They start to have a word in the ear of their Portuguese counterparts, and pressure is already coming to bear on the Police.

In addition, he sends over his media relations man, Clarence Mitchell, to make sure things are spun properly and the right news makes the media.

Gerry, either in consultation with Clarence, or someone else, or all by himself, decides that it is essential that the story remains on the front page of every paper. At the same time social media keeps the case prominent.

Perhaps he and Kate feel that it is better for them to stay out of the way, as they may be a distraction in any search. They will remain confined in their apartment at Mark Warner, only appearing to speak to the press, or to take some time away from the whole thing.

Their daily jogging and tennis matches can be explained as easily in the context of the need to keep their heads clear and think, as it can be seen as the actions of heartless parents.

Over the next few days, British cops arrive to assist the Portuguese. We have a situation where the whole town, country and continent are speculating on what has happened. Kate and Gerry probably found themselves at the centre of something much bigger than they had ever imagined.

Then briefing against the Portuguese starts. The cops are portrayed as incompetent, lazy and ignorant by our press, some might say this stretched to unacceptable racism - but that is hardly the parents' fault.

After the Portuguese name one of the neighbours as a person of interest, and fail to nail him, the pressure starts to get ramped up. The British want progress, the family wants progress, the Portuguese want the British off their backs.

There is the investigation by the sniffer dogs, and then the McCanns are named as suspects. Having utterly lost their faith in the Portuguese, and suspecting they are about to be framed, they decide to make the heartbreaking decision to get out of Portugal pronto.

The British make it clear they won't be happy if the Portuguese stand in their way, and the Portuguese agree to sign the Lisbon Treaty on EU integration. (Purely coincidentally, who knows.)

Back in the UK the couple try to keep the hunt going, however the way their name has been tarnished means that they have a lot of making up to do. It takes another five years before Britain agrees to send a Scotland Yard team over to try and find the abductor.

Amaral publishes his book (see my previous Devil's Advocacy) which says he thinks they covered up the accidental death of their daughter. This is adding insult to injury, the man who looked in the wrong place is now making money off the back of it.

They sue him for damage to reputation, on the grounds that it will hamper the hunt for Maddie. In the end, Portugal says he has done nothing wrong, and they have grounds to hate that place even more.

They are currently seeking justice in the European Court of Human Rights. All a distraction from their desire to keep the search for their daughter going, a distraction they didn't need.

(And that's pretty much their version of events, folks.)

[Cataplana]

New documentary on the case, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ7o5wF1vF8

Same old, same old McScam bollocks from my point of view, quicker to watch than the Netflix stuff though, for anyone that is interested.

Just about every criticism they have made of the investigation and Portugal has been shown to be a lie, but the same people keep repeating the same fake news year in year out.

For example, did you know that the ports and airport were alerted, and a car placed on the Guadiana bridge, despite the McCann machine saying they weren't.

What was the reason the crime scene wasn't sealed - well, it was because the McCanns and their friends had been in and out of the room up until the police arrived.

Why did the police take so long to get there? It was because the McCanns didn't phone them for over an hour after the "abduction" was discovered.

Why did the police not bring sniffer dogs? Well, they did, and requested top level dogs from Lisbon which arrived within 12 hours.

Why is Portugal a haven for paedophiles? Well, that's because it isn't, there have been four abductions of children in 40 years.

But, the same things keep getting repeated: bum up the parents (nice middle class doctors, not capable of any wrong); trash Portugal's record with paedophiles; destroy Amaral as a person (bad man, said they might have done it); make out the PJ are the Keystone Kops (no one expected them to make their records public, and none of the documentaries ever mention this); the dogs are "incredibly" unreliable (despite getting it right 200 times out of 200 previously); there is no corroborating evidence (other than the 15 out of 20 DNA markers found which would mean certain arrest in the UK); keep saying that they have been cleared (even though the Supreme Court in Lisbon said this is not the case); play up Jane Tanner's sighting, and play down the one that the Smiths made (even though Tannerman has been found, and the e-fit of Smithman was suppressed for over seven years.)

Sorry, been spending a lot of time going over the facts, reading different sources, and it just makes me angry that they have never been charged. It makes me angry that £12m has been spent on a fake investigation by Scotland Yard. One that has the specific remit that the only lines to be investigated are that the child either walked off, or was abducted - under no circumstances are the parents to be questioned as suspects.

It is an insult to every one of us when the justice system is not applied evenly. It seems to me that funds gathered to look for the child have been used to fund a campaign of disinformation in the media, and to shut down any author that dares to print the actual facts.

Anyway, plenty to ponder, as this nonsense continues. A month of fake suspects and patsies offered up to the press, while Operation Grange hold out for another half million, for another six months. "We've got someone in our sights, it's a matter of time", etc.

We are the ones they have in their sights. The mugs who are tolerating this whole fiasco, while other missing people don't get a fraction of the attention, or resources, or publicity.

[lord bunberry]

New documentary on the case, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ7o5wF1vF8

Same old, same old McScam bollocks from my point of view, quicker to watch than the Netflix stuff though, for anyone that is interested.

Just about every criticism they have made of the investigation and Portugal has been shown to be a lie, but the same people keep repeating the same fake news year in year out.

For example, did you know that the ports and airport were alerted, and a car placed on the Guadiana bridge, despite the McCann machine saying they weren't.

What was the reason the crime scene wasn't sealed - well, it was because the McCanns and their friends had been in and out of the room up until the police arrived.

Why did the police take so long to get there? It was because the McCanns didn't phone them for over an hour after the "abduction" was discovered.

Why did the police not bring sniffer dogs? Well, they did, and requested top level dogs from Lisbon which arrived within 12 hours.

Why is Portugal a haven for paedophiles? Well, that's because it isn't, there have been four abductions of children in 40 years.

But, the same things keep getting repeated: bum up the parents (nice middle class doctors, not capable of any wrong); trash Portugal's record with paedophiles; destroy Amaral as a person (bad man, said they might have done it); make out the PJ are the Keystone Kops (no one expected them to make their records public, and none of the documentaries ever mention this); the dogs are "incredibly" unreliable (despite getting it right 200 times out of 200 previously); there is no corroborating evidence (other than the 15 out of 20 DNA markers found which would mean certain arrest in the UK); keep saying that they have been cleared (even though the Supreme Court in Lisbon said this is not the case); play up Jane Tanner's sighting, and play down the one that the Smiths made (even though Tannerman has been found, and the e-fit of Smithman was suppressed for over seven years.)

Sorry, been spending a lot of time going over the facts, reading different sources, and it just makes me angry that they have never been charged. It makes me angry that £12m has been spent on a fake investigation by Scotland Yard. One that has the specific remit that the only lines to be investigated are that the child either walked off, or was abducted - under no circumstances are the parents to be questioned as suspects.

It is an insult to every one of us when the justice system is not applied evenly. It seems to me that funds gathered to look for the child have been used to fund a campaign of disinformation in the media, and to shut down any author that dares to print the actual facts.

Anyway, plenty to ponder, as this nonsense continues. A month of fake suspects and patsies offered up to the press, while Operation Grange hold out for another half million, for another six months. "We've got someone in our sights, it's a matter of time", etc.

We are the ones they have in their sights. The mugs who are tolerating this whole fiasco, while other missing people don't get a fraction of the attention, or resources, or publicity.

If all you say is true why haven’t they been charged with the murder? I’m not disputing any of what you’re saying by the way. I find the whole episode extremely uncomfortable, had they been a working class couple on holiday in Benidorm I think they’d have been crucified by the press and at least charged with neglect, but that doesn’t mean they killed their child.

[ACLeith]

If all you say is true why haven’t they been charged with the murder? I’m not disputing any of what you’re saying by the way. I find the whole episode extremely uncomfortable, had they been a working class couple on holiday in Benidorm I think they’d have been crucified by the press and at least charged with neglect, but that doesn’t mean they killed their child.

There is no smoking gun that points conclusively to any of the three possible scenarios. I have looked at some length into them, particularly the behaviour of everyone involved during and afterwards, and formed an opinion on the most likely.

I agree with you LB, I am equally uncomfortable at the way the press have run, and continue to run, with it. Double standards at the very least.

[Cataplana]

There is no smoking gun that points conclusively to any of the three possible scenarios. I have looked at some length into them, particularly the behaviour of everyone involved during and afterwards, and formed an opinion on the most likely.

I agree with you LB, I am equally uncomfortable at the way the press have run, and continue to run, with it. Double standards at the very least.

I had hoped to paste a link to an eBook by Paolo Reis, "The McCann War". He does a good job of comparing what the British press have printed, with what actually happened. They have nearly always been direct opposites.

Unfortunately, Amazon have been forced to take the book down, as a result of an "unknown" complaint. It's the blatant use of money to silence discussion on this case that makes me seethe.

[Cataplana]

If all you say is true why haven’t they been charged with the murder? I’m not disputing any of what you’re saying by the way. I find the whole episode extremely uncomfortable, had they been a working class couple on holiday in Benidorm I think they’d have been crucified by the press and at least charged with neglect, but that doesn’t mean they killed their child.

An enigmatic quote from a senior Portuguese justice official was "the case will be solved when the political will of the two countries wishes it." At present, both countries are farting about hoping the whole business will disappear.

Britain continues to pump money into a search, which has a snowball's chance of actually proving there was an abduction, far less finding an abductor. Portugal, is happy to wait as long as it takes, and is in no hurry to force Scotland Yard's hand.

The case will not go away, because too many people have been drawn into it from the start. The whole affair was watched very closely, and the tapes are there for everyone to see.

And no one could forsee that the Portuguese would release the police files to the public (can you blame them after the kicking our papers gave them.) Files that show that pretty much everything fed to the press by "a family friend" is lies.

It is the attempt to manipulate news, as well as what news they have tried to manipulate that is the most unsettling thing. The whole nonsense of discrediting the dogs, the fabrication about widespread paedophilia, the rubbishing of the police, are all red flags to many.

Jeremy Paxman once put it to McCann that having invited the media into the affair, they had "reaped the whirlwind". Indeed they have, and even though we cannot definitively solve whatever crime happened, what they have done to try and destroy those who stood in their way is there for everyone to see.

Finally, the passage of time does not always mean that no one will be convicted. There are lots of cases of people being convicted now for crimes that happened 50 + years ago.

ps - I definitely don't think they killed their child, however I can see sense in the idea that they disposed of her body.

[ACLeith]

I had hoped to paste a link to an eBook by Paolo Reis, "The McCann War". He does a good job of comparing what the British press have printed, with what actually happened. They have nearly always been direct opposites.

Unfortunately, Amazon have been forced to take the book down, as a result of an "unknown" complaint. It's the blatant use of money to silence discussion on this case that makes me seethe.

Probably the same "unknown" source as in the past. The innocent always wish all the facts to be in the public domain as it helps to uncover the truth

[Cataplana]

Probably the same "unknown" source as in the past. The innocent always wish all the facts to be in the public domain as it helps to uncover the truth

It is nearly always "a friend of the family", or "a source close to the family", or "a family source." Clarence Mitchell is the family's spin doctor.

It is remarkable how often the papers print what the family friend tells them, without even checking. Watch for reports of "a german paedophile, who can't be named"; "a man described as smelly", "travelling gypsies", "an unnamed target." It's always bollocks, and is designed to maintain the concept of abduction in the public mind.

To date, they have named at least 12 possible suspects, with efits or artists impressions. Yet, they sat on this efit that they commissioned to try and identify the man the Smith family saw, for seven years. (The efit is the one on the right, yet is usually missing from any documentary that they are involved in.)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h47MOjJsre0/Viy_NSLyuWI/AAAAAAAABtY/vyMNJpuxGhs/s1600/Gerry%2Bmccann%2BSmithman.png

The irony of the McCanns, and their press officer, who may well know other family friends, is that they used the press to tell lies, but had the cheek to go to the Leveson enquiry, and complain about how other people "hurt their feelings."

They had no feelings at all for Goncalo Amaral, the detective they tried to destroy. Their legal actions left him destitute and it was only through crowd funding that he was able to appeal, and beat them in the Portuguese Supreme Court.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48533619

[Cataplana]

[QUOTE=Moulin Yarns;5805426]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48533619[/QUOTE

A good week to bury bad news. Meanwhile,

It's never their fault. (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/782147/madeleine-mccann-2019-disappearance-news-detective-slams-trolls-missing-parents-latest)

Same old, same old. Silence all critics - no mention of what these allegations or slurs are. Go to #mccann and see what he is talking about - he was on there himself the other week trying to get a reaction.

[matty_f]

It is nearly always "a friend of the family", or "a source close to the family", or "a family source." Clarence Mitchell is the family's spin doctor.

It is remarkable how often the papers print what the family friend tells them, without even checking. Watch for reports of "a german paedophile, who can't be named"; "a man described as smelly", "travelling gypsies", "an unnamed target." It's always bollocks, and is designed to maintain the concept of abduction in the public mind.

To date, they have named at least 12 possible suspects, with efits or artists impressions. Yet, they sat on this efit that they commissioned to try and identify the man the Smith family saw, for seven years. (The efit is the one on the right, yet is usually missing from any documentary that they are involved in.)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-h47MOjJsre0/Viy_NSLyuWI/AAAAAAAABtY/vyMNJpuxGhs/s1600/Gerry%2Bmccann%2BSmithman.png

The irony of the McCanns, and their press officer, who may well know other family friends, is that they used the press to tell lies, but had the cheek to go to the Leveson enquiry, and complain about how other people "hurt their feelings."

They had no feelings at all for Goncalo Amaral, the detective they tried to destroy. Their legal actions left him destitute and it was only through crowd funding that he was able to appeal, and beat them in the Portuguese Supreme Court.

Speaking of spin, it's interesting to note that you posted the e-fit next to a picture of Gerry McCann.

This line of thought makes me wonder how the conversation would have gone...

Portuguese Copper (PC): Good news, we have this description in from someone, and we've got a great picture to release.

McCanns: Em... can you not release that please?

PC: Why not?

McCanns: Well, eh, don't want to be stating the obvious here or that, but it looks a bit like Gerry, if you wanted it to.

PC: Ah good point, we should probably ignore this piece of evidence in this high profile case.

McCanns: Yeah, probably for the best.

Senior PC: Hold on, do we know ANYONE who might look like this efit?

PC: No Sarge, just Gerry.

Senior PC: Shouldn't we pursue the line of inquiry that the person who gave us that description was actually describing Gerry McCann?

PC: That's ludicrous. Why on earth would we do that?

Senior PC: Well, isn't it a bit obvious?

PC: Lol, oh you joker, Sarge!

McCanns (nervously): Yeah, you joker Sarge.

British Police (somehow aware of the chat): Yeah we would recommend suppressing a vital lead like this as well because that's a normal thing for a police force to do while investigating a massively high profile international missing person case.

McCanns: Yeah!

Senior PC: Surely you can't be serious?

Lt Frank Drebin: I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.


etc

[One Day Soon]

Speaking of spin, it's interesting to note that you posted the e-fit next to a picture of Gerry McCann.

This line of thought makes me wonder how the conversation would have gone...

Portuguese Copper (PC): Good news, we have this description in from someone, and we've got a great picture to release.

McCanns: Em... can you not release that please?

PC: Why not?

McCanns: Well, eh, don't want to be stating the obvious here or that, but it looks a bit like Gerry, if you wanted it to.

PC: Ah good point, we should probably ignore this piece of evidence in this high profile case.

McCanns: Yeah, probably for the best.

Senior PC: Hold on, do we know ANYONE who might look like this efit?

PC: No Sarge, just Gerry.

Senior PC: Shouldn't we pursue the line of inquiry that the person who gave us that description was actually describing Gerry McCann?

PC: That's ludicrous. Why on earth would we do that?

Senior PC: Well, isn't it a bit obvious?

PC: Lol, oh you joker, Sarge!

McCanns (nervously): Yeah, you joker Sarge.

British Police (somehow aware of the chat): Yeah we would recommend suppressing a vital lead like this as well because that's a normal thing for a police force to do while investigating a massively high profile international missing person case.

McCanns: Yeah!

Senior PC: Surely you can't be serious?

Lt Frank Drebin: I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.


etc


Like.

[Cataplana]

Speaking of spin, it's interesting to note that you posted the e-fit next to a picture of Gerry McCann.

This line of thought makes me wonder how the conversation would have gone...

Portuguese Copper (PC): Good news, we have this description in from someone, and we've got a great picture to release.

McCanns: Em... can you not release that please?

PC: Why not?

McCanns: Well, eh, don't want to be stating the obvious here or that, but it looks a bit like Gerry, if you wanted it to.

PC: Ah good point, we should probably ignore this piece of evidence in this high profile case.

McCanns: Yeah, probably for the best.

Senior PC: Hold on, do we know ANYONE who might look like this efit?

PC: No Sarge, just Gerry.

Senior PC: Shouldn't we pursue the line of inquiry that the person who gave us that description was actually describing Gerry McCann?

PC: That's ludicrous. Why on earth would we do that?

Senior PC: Well, isn't it a bit obvious?

PC: Lol, oh you joker, Sarge!

McCanns (nervously): Yeah, you joker Sarge.

British Police (somehow aware of the chat): Yeah we would recommend suppressing a vital lead like this as well because that's a normal thing for a police force to do while investigating a massively high profile international missing person case.

McCanns: Yeah!

Senior PC: Surely you can't be serious?

Lt Frank Drebin: I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.


etc

You couldn't make it up Matty.

The answer to the question lies with Operation Grange. If they can tell us why they are not investigating the parents when the UKs own database of missing children suggests that less than 5% of kids are victim of stranger abduction, we might know.

As it stands £12m spent chasing fantasy leads has them no nearer to solving the case

Unless the deal is, Portugal will only prosecute once OG state they are happy that every lead has been eliminated.

And the picture of Smithman was commissioned by the McCanns. They wanted to suppress it, but the PI on the case insisted it was passed to Leicester CID. They then sat on it for another four yrars.

The Smith family say that they were 80% certain that it was H they saw. They didn't tell us that on Netflix.

They didn't tell us cadaver dog alerts are used regularly in the US courts, and the UK. Or that 15 alleles out of 19 would be sufficient DNA to convict in the UK.

However latest news is Portugal realise they were wrong to trust the UK lab, have a 100% match on one of the spots from 5a, and will retest the sample from the car using up to date technology.

It goes on. What is clear is that there has been an orchestrated campaign of misinformation from the McCanns.

I ask you this. Why set up a fund to pay legal fees within two weeks of your daughter's disappearance and why engage lawyers who are expert in extradition law.

Why did Jim Gamble, head of the online porn investigation team, allow this couple to go and dine with known nonce Clement Freud.

So many dodgy things that you have to ask questions.

Anyway, thanks for the craic, as I say it goes on, both sides fear a miscarriage of justice. One keeps quoting facts, the other doesn't.

Ps even Frank Drebbin could surely do better.

[matty_f]

That's pie in the sky stuff, you think that one bloggers following the story are asking these questions but the numerous police and investigators working the case haven't?

The parents have been investigated, thoroughly, and there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge them, let alone get them to court for ANY crime relating to Madeleine's disappearance.

Why do you think they set up a fund for legal fees? Would it not be a very sensible and prudent step to take when a situation like that came up? Even if you're 100% innocent, if you're in a foreign country and police are wanting to find a solution to a crime that you're close to, then having some lawyers on hand in your corner send to be to be a wholly reasonable thing to do.

Is Jim Gamble in a position to dictate to the McCanns who they can dine with?

Surely the question should be why would the McCanns fine with a known nonce (as you put it) when there was a lingering doubt about potential involvement in their daughter's disappearance. Surely if they were in cahoots with that kind of person the last thing they'd want to do is draw attention to it.

I personally don't see the McCanns putting out a campaign of misinformation, however I do see evidence of people asking loaded questions that rely on supposition and casting doubt on situations to paint a one sided version of events.

[Cataplana]

That's pie in the sky stuff, you think that one bloggers following the story are asking these questions but the numerous police and investigators working the case haven't?

The parents have been investigated, thoroughly, and there wasn't sufficient evidence to charge them, let alone get them to court for ANY crime relating to Madeleine's disappearance.

Why do you think they set up a fund for legal fees? Would it not be a very sensible and prudent step to take when a situation like that came up? Even if you're 100% innocent, if you're in a foreign country and police are wanting to find a solution to a crime that you're close to, then having some lawyers on hand in your corner send to be to be a wholly reasonable thing to do.

Is Jim Gamble in a position to dictate to the McCanns who they can dine with?

Surely the question should be why would the McCanns fine with a known nonce (as you put it) when there was a lingering doubt about potential involvement in their daughter's disappearance. Surely if they were in cahoots with that kind of person the last thing they'd want to do is draw attention to it.

I personally don't see the McCanns putting out a campaign of misinformation, however I do see evidence of people asking loaded questions that rely on supposition and casting doubt on situations to paint a one sided version of events.

I see a series of statements, and newspaper articles that are contradicted by the official police files. I don't know how many of the links I've provided you read, but I don't understand how you can see anything else if you have.

McCsnns, "the window has been jemmied, and the abductor took our child through it."
Truth, no jemmy, window too small for an adult to get through, no trace of fibres on the window sill.

McCanns: "we have been left to search by ourselves, no one is helping".
Truth: 150 GNR officers on the scene with tracker dogs, plus resort staff, plus residents of resort search till 4sm while the parents see a priest (wtf) phone home with stories they will be forced to change, delete text messages, and find time for a couple of hours shut eye.

Jim Gamble was an adviser to the McCanns, but your right bo one tells them what to do.

I day Freud was a nonce, because that's what he was, exposed as a paedophile. Don't you think a tip cop would be a bit more aware of how it would look?

As for hiring lawyers, when your child is still missing. As you do, eh?

[bigwheel]

I see a series of statements, and newspaper articles that are contradicted by the official police files. I don't know how many of the links I've provided you read, but I don't understand how you can see anything else if you have.

McCsnns, "the window has been jemmied, and the abductor took our child through it."
Truth, no jemmy, window too small for an adult to get through, no trace of fibres on the window sill.

McCanns: "we have been left to search by ourselves, no one is helping".
Truth: 150 GNR officers on the scene with tracker dogs, plus resort staff, plus residents of resort search till 4sm while the parents see a priest (wtf) phone home with stories they will be forced to change, delete text messages, and find time for a couple of hours shut eye.

Jim Gamble was an adviser to the McCanns, but your right bo one tells them what to do.

I day Freud was a nonce, because that's what he was, exposed as a paedophile. Don't you think a tip cop would be a bit more aware of how it would look?

As for hiring lawyers, when your child is still missing. As you do, eh?

Tbh, I think you see what you wish to see.....in most of your posts, there is nothing but assertion, conjecture, he said , she said, or questions around what is "normal" in these circumstances..

The fact is there is nothing "normal" in these circumstances...from the starting situation itself, to the different laws, culture, language of the environment through to the lack of trust between the police and the family...no comes out of this with any credit...including the police performance in the first 24 hours after the event..

Whatever happened, the parents have lost their child. Whether they were involved or nor, they will be living with that torment and grief still today...and the poor child is the victim here.

Other than morbid geeky interest, I don't really see the value in your level of interest and assertions...mind you, it's not a case that I have much energy to explore in that level of detail. The human tragedy is so profound that it trumps all speculations


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

Tbh, I think you see what you wish to see.....in most of your posts, there is nothing but assertion, conjecture, he said , she said, or questions around what is "normal" in these circumstances..

The fact is there is nothing "normal" in these circumstances...from the starting situation itself, to the different laws, culture, language of the environment through to the lack of trust between the police and the family...no comes out of this with any credit...including the police performance in the first 24 hours after the event..

Whatever happened, the parents have lost their child. Whether they were involved or nor, they will be living with that torment and grief still today...and the poor child is the victim here.

Other than morbid geeky interest, I don't really see the value in your level of interest and assertions...mind you, it's not a case that I have much energy to explore in that level of detail. The human tragedy is so profound that it trumps all speculations


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree that confirmation bias can play a big part in what you read and don't. Clearly there differences of opinion and that's what juries are for.

I can't say that any of my suspicions are proof of anything. I would like them to answer the questions they raise though.

Call it a geeky, morbid interest if you want. There are lots of people taking an interest in this. Classic McCann attack the person who doubts the story.


For me, I want to believe Portugal is not the sort of place that children are taken from their bed and nobody cares.

I also want to know if the McCanns have been justified in destroying so many people in their "search for their child."

Can I ask, if they had been involved in their daughters death, would I be morbid in wanting to see them brought to justice?

We get back to that standard response from so many, if it had been a couple from a council scheme, would people be quite so understanding?

Don't answer, because I already know what you'll say.

While we are here, you're right, there are lots of abnormal things in this case.

If the PJ had been passed this information from Britain do you think they would have been so happy to let them go?

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/4ududq/the_gaspar_statements_madeleine_mccann/

What kind of man let's someone make comments like that about his two year old daughter, let alone allows the creep to bath her? He was the last person to check on Maddie before the alarm was raised.

[bigwheel]

I agree that confirmation bias can play a big part in what you read and don't. Clearly there differences of opinion and that's what juries are for.

I can't say that any of my suspicions are proof of anything. I would like them to answer the questions they raise though.

Call it a geeky, morbid interest if you want. There are lots of people taking an interest in this. Classic McCann attack the person who doubts the story.


For me, I want to believe Portugal is not the sort of place that children are taken from their bed and nobody cares.

I also want to know if the McCanns have been justified in destroying so many people in their "search for their child."

Can I ask, if they had been involved in their daughters death, would I be morbid in wanting to see them brought to justice?

We get back to that standard response from so many, if it had been a couple from a council scheme, would people be quite so understanding?

Don't answer, because I already know what you'll say.

While we are here, you're right, there are lots of abnormal things in this case.

If the PJ had been passed this information from Britain do you think they would have been so happy to let them go?

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/4ududq/the_gaspar_statements_madeleine_mccann/

What kind of man let's someone make comments like that about his two year old daughter, let alone allows the creep to bath her? He was the last person to check on Maddie before the alarm was raised.

You continue to do what you call the McCann’s our for - attack them as people...

[Cataplana]

You continue to do what you call the McCann’s our for - attack them as people...

I question what sort of people they are, yes. Trying to bring some balance to their propaganda.

I also include facts such as their story about the abduction not adding up. The window was jemmied, then it wasn't , the window wasn't big enough, the children appear to have been drugged, the door was locked, then it wasn't.

Gerry McCann was telling people that the area was bad for paedophiles within two hours . That's an attack on Portugal.

My question is this, if you thought the place was crawling with paedophiles, why would you leave your kids alone, in an apartment next to a road? I wouldn't even let them go to the kids club.

The main thing is the only evidence of an abduction is the testimony of the two people who would be the main suspects, not based on my supposition, based on the British police historic data.

I'll repeat it. There is no evidence of an abduction. That despite Operation Grange spending £12m trying to find an abductor.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll tell me that I am saying all this to be rotten. Can I ask, is the Netflix film all you have seen on the case, or have you read things like the PJ Files, or some of the other stuff out there.

[bigwheel]

Not seen any of that - don’t have that level of interest

reacting to the content of your posts - the lack of any defining substance, the clear agenda of your posts and the irony that you take the same approach you accuse them of

No one thinks Portugal is a bad place - wonderful
People, wonderful country.

[Cataplana]

Not seen any of that - don’t have that level of interest

reacting to the content of your posts - the lack of any defining substance, the clear agenda of your posts and the irony that you take the same approach you accuse them of

No one thinks Portugal is a bad place - wonderful
People, wonderful country.

Just to remind you how we got here. There was a series of Netflix films. People reached conclusions based on it, and some people (mostly me) have been pointing out flaws in the film's regarding the sources of information and distortion of some of the facts.

Ironic that you are saying no one is criticising Portugal. Because both the British MSM and the Netflix stuff made criticising Portugal one of the planks of their strategy.

They questioned the competency of the police, they made wrong statements about their laws on Paedophilia, and they lied about things about the lack of an orphanage in the Lagos area.

But there is no point in us discussing it further, you seem to avoid addressing some of the points I raise. I think it's healthy to look at all the information, or at least acknowledge there are alternative explanations.

One thing we do agree on is that Portugal is a great country and has wonderful people. That's why I'm apalled at the attitude that's been shown, about the lies that are told and repeated without question by our media.

A proper conclusion to their investigation without interference from Britain, and nonsense about people because being framed, would be a start.

We will both have to wait and see how it pans out.

[bigwheel]

Just to remind you how we got here. There was a series of Netflix films. People reached conclusions based on it, and some people (mostly me) have been pointing out flaws in the film's regarding the sources of information and distortion of some of the facts.

Ironic that you are saying no one is criticising Portugal. Because both the British MSM and the Netflix stuff made criticising Portugal one of the planks of their strategy.

They questioned the competency of the police, they made wrong statements about their laws on Paedophilia, and they lied about things about the lack of an orphanage in the Lagos area.

But there is no point in us discussing it further, you seem to avoid addressing some of the points I raise. I think it's healthy to look at all the information, or at least acknowledge there are alternative explanations.

One thing we do agree on is that Portugal is a great country and has wonderful people. That's why I'm apalled at the attitude that's been shown, about the lies that are told and repeated without question by our media.

A proper conclusion to their investigation without interference from Britain, and nonsense about people because being framed, would be a start.

We will both have to wait and see how it pans out.

You’re over sensitive on the Portugal stuff ..countries and cultures get criticised all the time - think about the tone and worldwide view of current British culture these days in the geo- political environment of brexit

Portugal is loved by many many people in the UK - that is the dominant tone

Start following the Hibs - that will get you out of this McCann geekiness and into a whole New world of paranoia! [emoji6]

[Cataplana]

You’re over sensitive on the Portugal stuff ..countries and cultures get criticised all the time - think about the tone and worldwide view of current British culture these days in the geo- political environment of brexit

Portugal is loved by many many people in the UK - that is the dominant tone

Start following the Hibs - that will get you out of this McCann geekiness and into a whole New world of paranoia! [emoji6]

It was supporting Hibs that prepared me for this. :thumbsup:

[bigwheel]

It was supporting Hibs that prepared me for this. :thumbsup:

[emoji23]

[matty_f]

I see a series of statements, and newspaper articles that are contradicted by the official police files. I don't know how many of the links I've provided you read, but I don't understand how you can see anything else if you have.

McCsnns, "the window has been jemmied, and the abductor took our child through it."
Truth, no jemmy, window too small for an adult to get through, no trace of fibres on the window sill.

McCanns: "we have been left to search by ourselves, no one is helping".
Truth: 150 GNR officers on the scene with tracker dogs, plus resort staff, plus residents of resort search till 4sm while the parents see a priest (wtf) phone home with stories they will be forced to change, delete text messages, and find time for a couple of hours shut eye.

Jim Gamble was an adviser to the McCanns, but your right bo one tells them what to do.

I day Freud was a nonce, because that's what he was, exposed as a paedophile. Don't you think a tip cop would be a bit more aware of how it would look?

As for hiring lawyers, when your child is still missing. As you do, eh?

If a cop would see how it would look, don't you think that if there was something to hide then that would be a significant reason not to meet? Unless your theory is that they met to be 'hiding in plain sight'? It doesn't make sense.

The police files and statements will have inconsistencies and conflicts, I would think that is entirely expected in a case that has been investigated over a number of years and by a number of people.

Different theories will be tested and disproved and different lines of thinking will emerge.

Bear in mind that the McCanns have a huge emotional influence in their actions and statements. They've lost their daughter.

IMHO, you have your mind made up and so you'll attach weight to the 'evidence' and theories that support it, which means it's easy for you to dismiss things that don't suit ("As for hiring lawyers, when your child is still missing. As you do, eh?")


Looking online, 30 children went missing from Portugal between Madeleine's disappearance and 2012, so while it's not frequent it does happen.

And still the "would working class families have got the same attention?" is this the McCann's fault? Does the attention they got AFTER the event make them guilty?

Shannon Matthews went missing for a bit, couldn't get more working class than that family, and there was a huge media interest in the story. Amazingly, her parents were found out very quickly by competent police.

The other point you make in this thread, which I have a real issue with, is the Team McCann "attack the counter argument" stuff. Trust me, that exists in your head and in the heads of the folk who are pushing their theories, and nowhere else.

I have no connection to the McCanns. I don't know if they're guilty or not but I do know that on the balance of probability, given how much time, money and energy has been spent investigating the case, they're innocent.

If evidence emerges to contradict that down the line, then I'd be happy to accept that as I have no emotional attachment to the outcome at all.

My significant gripe here (and it's the same with those that go on about 911 conspiracies, or the moon landings being faked, or the earth being flat) is that folk pick and choose which 'facts' or evidence to present to support their argument, often out of context and frequently not in full (so they take a selective part of a statement, which means something completely different when viewed on it's own than it does when viewed as part of the full context).

See on this thread "why did the McCanns refuse to answer the police's questions?"
"why did they suppress this efit photo (that I've posted next to a photo of Gerry McCann - draw your own conclusions)?"

[Cataplana]

If a cop would see how it would look, don't you think that if there was something to hide then that would be a significant reason not to meet? Unless your theory is that they met to be 'hiding in plain sight'? It doesn't make sense.

I am actually questioning Gambles "expert status", he is trotted out as an authority on the case, and is disrespectful to colleagues in Portugal.

The police files and statements will have inconsistencies and conflicts, I would think that is entirely expected in a case that has been investigated over a number of years and by a number of people.

I am referring to the statements gathered in the first 12 months of the investigation. Here, specifically to three different versions of events from the 9, in the 24 hours following the alarm. A reconstruction would have helped.

Different theories will be tested and disproved and different lines of thinking will emerge.

Of course, I believe that at the end of the day a court case is the fairest way to arrive at a conclusion. The McCanns were keen on that, constantly asking the Portuguese Courts to declare them innocent. They didn't do that and reaffirmed they are very much in the frame.

Bear in mind that the McCanns have a huge emotional influence in their actions and statements. They've lost their daughter.

Yet, when it suits then, they attribute their emotional detachment to their medical background. They seem to swing between the two as suits their position.

IMHO, you have your mind made up and so you'll attach weight to the 'evidence' and theories that support it, which means it's easy for you to dismiss things that don't suit ("As for hiring lawyers, when your child is still missing. As you do, eh?")

I do not deny that. Just as you came up with an implausible argument as to why they would do that.


Looking online, 30 children went missing from Portugal between Madeleine's disappearance and 2012, so while it's not frequent it does happen.

How many were found within 24 hours. How many bare still missing. How does that compare to the UK?

And still the "would working class families have got the same attention?" is this the McCann's fault? Does the attention they got AFTER the event make them guilty?

I woujd argue that the attention the NcCanns got was very much due to their own efforts, it cuts both ways, they courted publicity, people have a right to ask questions, especially when they have been collecting money from the public

Shannon Matthews went missing for a bit, couldn't get more working class than that family, and there was a huge media interest in the story. Amazingly, her parents were found out very quickly by competent police.

Don't go there Matty, the Portuguese police are just as competent as ours, as their records show.

The other point you make in this thread, which I have a real issue with, is the Team McCann "attack the counter argument" stuff. Trust me, that exists in your head and in the heads of the folk who are pushing their theories, and nowhere else.

Unfair, you can't quantify that statement. Let me ask you, what is the split in opinion of the British public? That's in your head.

I have no connection to the McCanns. I don't know if they're guilty or not but I do know that on the balance of probability, given how much time, money and energy has been spent investigating the case, they're innocent.

So because our honest cops and politicians are spending money (Hillsborough, Birmingham Six, Timothy Evans etc) say so, that's good enough for you? Nothing else I can say.

If evidence emerges to contradict that down the line, then I'd be happy to accept that as I have no emotional attachment to the outcome at all.

Good for you.

My significant gripe here (and it's the same with those that go on about 911 conspiracies, or the moon landings being faked, or the earth being flat) is that folk pick and choose which 'facts' or evidence to present to support their argument, often out of context and frequently not in full (so they take a selective part of a statement, which means something completely different when viewed on it's own than it does when viewed as part of the full context).

See what you did there. The facts are in the public domain, the YouTube videos are there. The police files are there for all to read. The lies in the media fed by McCann can easily be shown.

See on this thread "why did the McCanns refuse to answer the police's questions?"
"why did they suppress this efit photo (that I've posted next to a photo of Gerry McCann - draw your own conclusions)?"

What's your point Matty? It's what happened. Why can't you accept it? Why can't you accept they are still using Jane Tanner's sighting which would place the abductor elsewhere, even though the man has been tracked down?



Sorry my answers aren't in bold can't do it on my phone.

Let's move on. What evidence of an abduction is there? How did the abductor get in and out in three minutes, and leave no trace of having been in the room.

Why did the Tapas 9 change their stories to fit the theory of
how the guy got in (clearly jemmied window early on, but changed when pointed out the window wasn't jemmied?"

You are the one seeing what you want to see. We have polar opposite positions, and I am not going to convince you to change your position by referring to the facts and red flags. So, prove to me that child was taken by a stranger.

[matty_f]

Sorry my answers aren't in bold can't do it on my phone.

Let's move on. What evidence of an abduction is there? How did the abductor get in and out in three minutes, and leave no trace of having been in the room.

Why did the Tapas 9 change their stories to fit the theory of
how the guy got in (clearly jemmied window early on, but changed when pointed out the window wasn't jemmied?"

You are the one seeing what you want to see. We have polar opposite positions, and I am not going to convince you to change your position by referring to the facts and red flags.

So, prove to me that child was taken by a stranger.

I can't prove the child was taken by a stranger, and I don't think (as far as I can remember) that I've ever said that's what happened. I've consistently said I don't know what happened though.

I'm curious as to why you think the burden of proof lies with me?

As to the other points - of course there are inconsistencies in versions of events. You're talking about people trying to recollect events which they were previously unaware would be of any significance to them. If you asked everyone who I'm working with today what happened from the start of our shift to the end of our shift, you'd get inconsistencies from one person to the other.

Ask them again in a month, and you'd get even more inconsistencies, and then ask them again three months down the line. Maybe emphasise how important it is that they get it right to throw in some stress, and the chances are the variances would be even greater.

With respect to the 30 children, I don't know the answers to the questions you posed to them, but I fail to see the relevance of them. For reference, the sources I used were the Sun online and the Huffington Post (they came up close to the top in the search results), I haven't qualified their sources but since we're quoting Youtube as a source for information I think that's fair enough.

I haven't said that the Portugese police were incompetent, just that the British police were when finding out what happened to Shannon Matthews.

As for the Team McCann, that probably came out more disrespectfully than intended, so I'll apologise for that. What I meant by it is that I don't think there's an army of people connected to the McCanns who are trawling the internet to attack people with different theories.

Surprisingly, there is very close evidence of people doing it the other way around though :greengrin

Ironically, pulling out Hillsborough and the Birmingham Six as examples probably supports my theory rather than yours, they are high profile and very rare, and ultimately justice was done. If anything - these examples show that it would have been more likely for the police (either Portugese or British) to pin the case on the McCanns and fit the evidence to support that theory, thus closing the case whether they were guilty or not.

The facts are in the public domain, how they are presented makes a significant difference to how they are viewed and to what aspects of them are given significance.

I'm not seeing what I want to see, if I saw enough credible evidence to support that the McCanns were responsible to outweigh the evidence that says that they weren't, then I'd accept it.

The stuff that's been presented is nowhere close to that,though.

[Cataplana]

I can't prove the child was taken by a stranger, and I don't think (as far as I can remember) that I've ever said that's what happened. I've consistently said I don't know what happened though.

I'm curious as to why you think the burden of proof lies with me?

IF you could do that, I'll go away, I promise.

As to the other points - of course there are inconsistencies in versions of events. You're talking about people trying to recollect events which they were previously unaware would be of any significance to them. If you asked everyone who I'm working with today what happened from the start of our shift to the end of our shift, you'd get inconsistencies from one person to the other.

IF that was a defence no one would ever be found guilty. Let me stress though, we are talking about three attempts in 12 hours to piece together events.


Ask them again in a month, and you'd get even more inconsistencies, and then ask them again three months down the line. Maybe emphasise how important it is that they get it right to throw in some stress, and the chances are the variances would be even greater.

YEAH, but 12 hours?

With respect to the 30 children, I don't know the answers to the questions you posed to them, but I fail to see the relevance of them. For reference, the sources I used were the Sun online and the Huffington Post (they came up close to the top in the search results), I haven't qualified their sources but since we're quoting Youtube as a source for information I think that's fair enough.

NEARLY all their interviews are on YouTube. The Sun guaranteed that they would never print anything negative about the McCanns. They are not unbiased.

Source will almost certainly be their spin doctor. I wish I could give you an exact breakdown of the 30, but most were back within 24 hours, very few were under five, and none was taken from their bed.


I haven't said that the Portugese police were incompetent, just that the British police were when finding out what happened to Shannon Matthews.

SORRY, I called you out wrongly. I agree, in addition Portugal also acknowledges they should have gone in harder on the parents, but buckled to British pressure.

As for the Team McCann, that probably came out more disrespectfully than intended, so I'll apologise for that. What I meant by it is that I don't think there's an army of people connected to the McCanns who are trawling the internet to attack people with different theories.

THEY do have a spin doctor. They have embraced the media from the start. Just about every story in the British press is false and can easily be disproved

Going by Twitter they also have a couple of paid shills whose job is to spread fake news and attack opponents.

Surprisingly, there is very close evidence of people doing it the other way around though :greengrin

Nobody is perfect.

Ironically, pulling out Hillsborough and the Birmingham Six as examples probably supports my theory rather than yours, they are high profile and very rare, and ultimately justice was done. If anything - these examples show that it would have been more likely for the police (either Portugese or British) to pin the case on the McCanns and fit the evidence to support that theory, thus closing the case whether they were guilty or not.

It is a high profile case. The highest in government got involvrd. There is a Netflix series. They paid to keep the story in the press for a year .


The facts are in the public domain, how they are presented makes a significant difference to how they are viewed and to what aspects of them are given significance.

More reliable than the press.

I'm not seeing what I want to see, if I saw enough credible evidence to support that the McCanns were responsible to outweigh the evidence that says that they weren't, then I'd accept it.

If someone can show me evidence of an abduction I'd accept that. £12m and absolutely hee haw to show for it.

The stuff that's been presented is nowhere close to that,though.

A career at the bar is probably over ambitious.



They changed their version of events as the first one was bollocks and an abduction would not have been possible.

[matty_f]

They changed their version of events as the first one was bollocks and an abduction would not have been possible.

It's not on the McCanns to prove she was abducted though. Surely at best that is their theory on what happened, but in the absence of a proven explanation of what happened, it's only ever going to be that.

They'll know for definite if they killed her or if they found her dead and moved her. I struggle to see why they'd want an investigation to continue if that was the case, as if it was the case, they've gotten away with i as things stand.

[bigwheel]

They changed their version of events as the first one was bollocks and an abduction would not have been possible.


you do realise that their first version would have been shortly after their daughter went missing.Do you think that could possibly have affected their clarity??

[Cataplana]

you do realise that their first version would have been shortly after their daughter went missing.Do you think that could possibly have affected their clarity??

Edit|: You do realise that they thought they were going to jail if they couldn't get their story straight?

I'm sure that you would expect a defence lawyer to highlight that. The thing is the McCanns and their friends state of mind tends to fluctuate according to what suits the situation.

My memories of watching LA Law have me thinking of a phrase "you cannot speculate on mental state". Time and again people have said, "you can't tell what you would think in that situation." Quite, but I'm sure cops go on red flags like inconsistent stories, changing stories and what people's motivation for changing the story is.

They excuse their lack of emotion and detachment from what was going on by pointing to the fact that they trained as doctors, and that's how doctors act in a crisis. Likewise this is used to explain why they didn't immediately join the search, and why Kate ran out of the apartment leaving the remaining two children in there alone.

So, to an extent it might also explain why when the alarm had been raised, and everyone else was out looking for their daughter, that they would see their best contribution as being cool and collected and sit down with their friends to write a timeline on their daughters colouring book.

They were also able to phone home, give a clear statement to at least three different people that the window had been jemmied. This is very important, as this was quickly shown to be untrue. They then sat down and wrote another sequence of events that took care of the window not being jemmied.

Amaral covers why they had doubts about the abduction story from the get go, in his book. Here is a link, Truth of the Lie (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/TOTL.htm) . If you read Chapter Four you see what the objective police observers saw on the night.

Imagine you are the jury, does it seem suspicious to you or not?

[Cataplana]

It's not on the McCanns to prove she was abducted though. Surely at best that is their theory on what happened, but in the absence of a proven explanation of what happened, it's only ever going to be that.

They'll know for definite if they killed her or if they found her dead and moved her. I struggle to see why they'd want an investigation to continue if that was the case, as if it was the case, they've gotten away with i as things stand.

I go out to the shops with my grand daughter, and come back without her. People ask where she is, I say "that's for you to work out", that would scan well wouldn't it?

David Gilroy protests his innocence, however his conviction is based on a theory in the absence of a body.

Lots of convictions are based on theories.

As long as they can spin out their theory that the child was abducted then they will get away with it, if they did it.

At the end of the day, it should be for a jury to decide. A DNA sample with 15 out of 19 matches is more than enough to convict in the UK.

So much speculation on what you or I would or wouldn't do. We are not the McCanns, we can't know what they were thinking. But, just because we don't want to believe that parents could do such things, doesn't mean to say we have to accept what they tell us.

[bigwheel]

Edit|: You do realise that they thought they were going to jail if they couldn't get their story straight?

I'm sure that you would expect a defence lawyer to highlight that. The thing is the McCanns and their friends state of mind tends to fluctuate according to what suits the situation.

My memories of watching LA Law have me thinking of a phrase "you cannot speculate on mental state". Time and again people have said, "you can't tell what you would think in that situation." Quite, but I'm sure cops go on red flags like inconsistent stories, changing stories and what people's motivation for changing the story is.

They excuse their lack of emotion and detachment from what was going on by pointing to the fact that they trained as doctors, and that's how doctors act in a crisis. Likewise this is used to explain why they didn't immediately join the search, and why Kate ran out of the apartment leaving the remaining two children in there alone.

So, to an extent it might also explain why when the alarm had been raised, and everyone else was out looking for their daughter, that they would see their best contribution as being cool and collected and sit down with their friends to write a timeline on their daughters colouring book.

They were also able to phone home, give a clear statement to at least three different people that the window had been jemmied. This is very important, as this was quickly shown to be untrue. They then sat down and wrote another sequence of events that took care of the window not being jemmied.

Amaral covers why they had doubts about the abduction story from the get go, in his book. Here is a link, Truth of the Lie (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/TOTL.htm) . If you read Chapter Four you see what the objective police observers saw on the night.

Imagine you are the jury, does it seem suspicious to you or not?


they are not on trial...so Jury is irrelevant...

you are talking without emotion..they weren't

[Fife-Hibee]

It's a shame that such a thing drags on in the media for so long, just because the parents are high profile doctors. Think of the countless parents who have lost children since and before then and have had very little coverage on it, because they're just not "high profile" enough.

[Cataplana]

they are not on trial...so Jury is irrelevant...

you are talking without emotion..they weren't

We are considering facts in much the same way a jury would.

At the end of the day, it's about the facts how they are presented and interpreted.

Did you read the facts gathered by the police? Were the people confused, or lieing? That's what answering the questions that Kate refused to answer might have helped resolve the whole issue.

There were inconsistencies that needed addressed, and taking part in a reconstruction might have been wise too.

I just don't buy that the PJ would try to frame them with the amount of media and political involvement in the case.

[Cataplana]

It's a shame that such a thing drags on in the media for so long, just because the parents are high profile doctors. Think of the countless parents who have lost children since and before then and have had very little coverage on it, because they're just not "high profile" enough.

I don't buy the class angle. There have been people from other backgrounds who have been protected by the establishment, or have had influence through the media.

Saville was a working class lad when you think about it.

[bigwheel]

We are considering facts in much the same way a jury would.

At the end of the day, it's about the facts how they are presented and interpreted.

Did you read the facts gathered by the police? Were the people confused, or lieing? That's what answering the questions that Kate refused to answer might have helped resolve the whole issue.

There were inconsistencies that needed addressed, and taking part in a reconstruction might have been wise too.

I just don't buy that the PJ would try to frame them with the amount of media and political involvement in the case.

I don’t suspect they would try to frame them...but as they completely failed in their investigation, they needto seek to apportion blame somewhere....they failed to do that effectively too, by the way..

You can point to inconsistency in the parents behaviour, none of that takes away from an ineffective performance from the police and authorities on this case....which has resulted in them failing to secure a conviction for any alleged perpetrators


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

I don’t suspect they would try to frame them...but as they completely failed in their investigation, they needto seek to apportion blame somewhere....they failed to do that effectively too, by the way..

You can point to inconsistency in the parents behaviour, none of that takes away from an ineffective performance from the police and authorities on this case....which has resulted in them failing to secure a conviction for any alleged perpetrators


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The fact that you continue to talk about a failed investigation suggests you have not read Amaral's book, or any of the other evidence that the investigation was well run; or that you refuse to accept its validity.

Which is it?

[bigwheel]

The fact that you continue to talk about a failed investigation suggests you have not read Amaral's book, or any of the other evidence that the investigation was well run; or that you refuse to accept its validity.

Which is it?

Neither - don’t have too...

As they have not charged anyone with the murder or disappearance of the poor child - the failure is clear for everyone to see

[Cataplana]

Neither - don’t have too...

As they have not charged anyone with the murder or disappearance of the poor child - the failure is clear for everyone to see

How can you see things are clear to see when you can only see part of the picture? The failure to make an arrest may not be Portugals fault.

Scotland Yard continue to look for an abductor. A man was seen by the Smith family carrying a child at the time alarm was raised. I think he is the person that needs to be found.

I believe when that man is found, and questioned that the final piece of the jigswaw will be in place.

[bigwheel]

How can you see things are clear to see when you can only see part of the picture? The failure to make an arrest may not be Portugals fault.

Scotland Yard continue to look for an abductor. A man was seen by the Smith family carrying a child at the time alarm was raised. I think he is the person that needs to be found.

I believe when that man is found, and questioned that the final piece of the jigswaw will be in place.

Who’s responsibility do you feel it was to find people like that earlier in the investigation?

[Cataplana]

Who’s responsibility do you feel it was to find people like that earlier in the investigation?

The investigating force, what suggests to you they weren't trying to find him? If you read their account, you will see that they did.

He was one of many leads they had to follow up. If you read Amaral's account you will see the problems that arose.

Bear in mind, they were also having to deal with continual false sightings from the dodgy private eyes hired by McCann.

What else did they do wrong?

[bigwheel]

The investigating force, what suggests to you they weren't trying to find him? If you read their account, you will see that they did.

He was one of many leads they had to follow up. If you read Amaral's account you will see the problems that arose.

Bear in mind, they were also having to deal with continual false sightings from the dodgy private eyes hired by McCann.

What else did they do wrong?

They didn’t find out what happened or charge the perpetrators.... that’s what their accountability is....

anything else in process or method is largely insignificant..

One small example though, is that journalists , unconnected with the McCann’s detailed lots of examples in the days after Maddie went missing of cars, trucks and vans going over the border to Spain. , without any check or inspection...that is verified and independent testimony ..so, there is one, but perhaps critical, lack of discipline and control that may have led to their failure to secure a result in this terrible case ..and what else was not done correctly of obvious controls such if those were managed in a lax manner?

[Cataplana]

They didn’t find out what happened or charge the perpetrators.... that’s what their accountability is....

anything else in process or method is largely insignificant..

One small example though, is that journalists , unconnected with the McCann’s detailed lots of examples in the days after Maddie went missing of cars, trucks and vans going over the border to Spain. , without any check or inspection...that is verified and independent testimony ..so, there is one, but perhaps critical, lack of discipline and control that may have led to their failure to secure a result in this terrible case ..and what else was not done correctly of obvious controls such if those were managed in a lax manner?

Deleted my last post. This is pointless when you won't accept any new information.

FYI we don't stop traffic in the UK when kids go missing either.

The Forth Road Bridge remained open when Mikhail Khukar disappeared.

You are just ignoring anything that goes against your view and repeating the same old mantras that the McCanns have been preaching from day one.

[bigwheel]

Deleted my last post. This is pointless when you won't accept any new information.

FYI we don't stop traffic in the UK when kids go missing either.

The Forth Road Bridge remained open when Mikhail Khukar disappeared.

You are just ignoring anything that goes against your view and repeating the same old mantras that the McCanns have been preaching from day one.

Of course we stop and check cars when kids go
Missing ..we also take actions at ports and airports in events of these types of incidents ..we are an island , so we don’t have physical borders in the way Portugal does ..tbh. What we do is somewhat irrelevant, as the Portuguese authorities (and you have repeated it on here) claimed that they had set up controls at perimeters and borders - and I’m merely pointing out that the controls were lax - just a fact - may or may not be vital...you are deflecting that by now suggesting we don’t do it ...

I’m laughing at your reaction...it seems you have spent 100s of hours researching this and have nothing other than a reaction from cadaver dogs (which can’t be linked to a specific person ) and some assumptions around behaviours ...

I don’t have any agenda or view of what happened - other than I don’t believe that the truth would still be hidden if the family and friends had covered up an accidental death - someone would have broken by now. That is human nature

[Cataplana]

No, it's not all I have, but when you are unprepared to read the evidence I present, what can I do? For someone with no interest in the case, you seem to pretty adept at reeling off the standard McCann defences, and also demonstrate the standard McCann fingers in the ears response to stuff you don't want to hear.

I give you Mikael Khukar as an example, and you tell me it's not true. Then you talk nonsense about Spain and Portugal having a land border, like crossing it is the equivalent of taking the kid to Mars.

And of course, the odd sky attack at the person passing the information on to you doesn't go amiss. I don't believe you have no interest in this, you are too determined to rubbish information that looks bad for them.


The Independence of the British Press

(Apologies for copying this direct, from The McCann's War by Paolo Reis. I am doing it to illustrate why it is a good reason to fork opinion from more than one source.

Especially when the same source comes up with two blatantly opposite reports. I suppose he's another one that could have been overcome with emotion and got all his facts wrong the first time, right enough.

The question really is, "which one do you believe?" The one before Clarence Mitchell started telling British papers what to write, or the one after his arrival in PdL?)

In one of the most flagrant cases, Martin Fricker and Rod Chaytor of the "Daily Mirror" signed a laudatory piece on May 5, highlighting the fact that the entire 5-story building was sealed by police with the usual blue and white ribbons, and that fingerprints had been collected from the blinds and window of Madeleine's bedroom.

The article noted that even the rear yard area had been sealed off by police: “Officers sealed off the five story holiday block with crime scene tape and fingerprinted the shutters and window sill outside Maddy's room. A patio to the rear of the block, believed to be attached to the family's two-bedroom apartment, was also sealed off”.

During the afternoon, still according to the same article, the searches had intensified, with helicopters, firemen and elements of the Maritime Police.

"A special Judicial Police team was on its way from Lisbon," added the Daily Mirror article, which quoted Sky News weather news presenter Jo Wheeler in Praia da Luz as reporting in the newspaper that the searches "were very well organized".

The same Martin Fricker, this time with the journalist Stewart Maclean, penned another article, on May 9, where there is a list of the "ten great blunders" committed by the Portuguese police in the first hours after the disappearance is made.

In this list, there is totally contradictory information about the first article in the Daily Mirror on 5 May. In this second story, it is stated that the apartment had not been sealed: “Officers failed to cordon off the holiday apartment where Maddy was snatched as soon as they arrived.

Amazingly, other tourists were allowed to stroll around the crime scene up to 24 hours later - potentially destroying clues and contaminating forensic evidence."

Quite a change of story there. Why the sudden need to start rubbishing the Portuguese police? Who gains from that?

[bigwheel]

The Independence of the British Press

(Apologies for copying this direct, from The McCann's War by Paolo Reis. I am doing it to illustrate why it is a good reason to fork opinion from more than one source.

Especially when the same source comes up with two blatantly opposite reports. I suppose he's another one that could have been overcome with emotion and got all his facts wrong the first time, right enough.

The question really is, "which one do you believe?" The one before Clarence Mitchell started telling British papers what to write, or the one after his arrival in PdL?)

In one of the most flagrant cases, Martin Fricker and Rod Chaytor of the "Daily Mirror" signed a laudatory piece on May 5, highlighting the fact that the entire 5-story building was sealed by police with the usual blue and white ribbons, and that fingerprints had been collected from the blinds and window of Madeleine's bedroom.

The article noted that even the rear yard area had been sealed off by police: “Officers sealed off the five story holiday block with crime scene tape and fingerprinted the shutters and window sill outside Maddy's room. A patio to the rear of the block, believed to be attached to the family's two-bedroom apartment, was also sealed off”.

During the afternoon, still according to the same article, the searches had intensified, with helicopters, firemen and elements of the Maritime Police.

"A special Judicial Police team was on its way from Lisbon," added the Daily Mirror article, which quoted Sky News weather news presenter Jo Wheeler in Praia da Luz as reporting in the newspaper that the searches "were very well organized".

The same Martin Fricker, this time with the journalist Stewart Maclean, penned another article, on May 9, where there is a list of the "ten great blunders" committed by the Portuguese police in the first hours after the disappearance is made.

In this list, there is totally contradictory information about the first article in the Daily Mirror on 5 May. In this second story, it is stated that the apartment had not been sealed: “Officers failed to cordon off the holiday apartment where Maddy was snatched as soon as they arrived.

Amazingly, other tourists were allowed to stroll around the crime scene up to 24 hours later - potentially destroying clues and contaminating forensic evidence."

Quite a change of story there. Why the sudden need to start rubbishing the Portuguese police? Who gains from that?

It’s a good example you share ...there was definitely at times “this backward country Portugal don’t know what they are doing..” tone to some of the British media coverage ..

That tone fuels division..unfortunately it has existed for decades (if not longer) and has been part of the recent media approach which has fuelled some of the “them and us” tone on macro topics - such as immigration and brexit ...it is horrible ..and unfortunately the Daily Mail’s, Sun etc have used hate as a key editorial tool for decades ..it is the worst of British press..more disappointingly the BBC have become more populist in recent years too...

There are nuances though - there is nothing to stop (or wrong with) a journo reflecting days later and drawing revised conclusion - perhaps he had more info by then ?

Equally, you do come over too protective of the authorities response to this case. I agree they were made to look incompetent by the British media at times, that is clearly not true - yet neither did the authorities do everything effectively..

[Cataplana]

Hmmm, change of tone there. :confused:

We really aren't getting anywhere, All I ask is that you look into things from different angles from the line spun with the British media.

They have been repeating the same themes since the McCanns started to brief them: there was no assistance with searching; Portugal is soft on paedophiles; police response was ineffective; Police chief was corrupt, lazy and incompetent; there is no DNA evidence; cadaver dogs are unreliable; Portugal offered Kate a plea deal; Jane Tanner saw the abductor; the parents have been cleared.

None of these things are true. The reason I lean towards the official (ie non McCann) version of events, is that it is backed up by witness statements, given by real people (not "sources", or "family friends") and it is objective.

[bigwheel]

Hmmm, change of tone there. :confused:

We really aren't getting anywhere, All I ask is that you look into things from different angles from the line spun with the British media.

They have been repeating the same themes since the McCanns started to brief them: there was no assistance with searching; Portugal is soft on paedophiles; police response was ineffective; Police chief was corrupt, lazy and incompetent; there is no DNA evidence; cadaver dogs are unreliable; Portugal offered Kate a plea deal; Jane Tanner saw the abductor; the parents have been cleared.

None of these things are true. The reason I lean towards the official (ie non McCann) version of events, is that it is backed up by witness statements, given by real people (not "sources", or "family friends") and it is objective.

Tbh. I’m more looking at the tone and content of your arguments - it’s not a case that I invest time in ..

I don’t fall in love with the “British” view..my perspective is more objective than that ..

The fact is the “officials” have neither found Maddie nor identified what happened ...their view may have good details in it, but it falls some way short of a successful Investigation..that not a British view , it is simply a factual observation...

[Cataplana]

Tbh. I’m more looking at the tone and content of your arguments - it’s not a case that I invest time in ..

I don’t fall in love with the “British” view..my perspective is more objective than that ..

The fact is the “officials” have neither found Maddie nor identified what happened ...their view may have good details in it, but it falls some way short of a successful Investigation..that not a British view , it is simply a factual observation...

Sorry, I always meant to ask, what qualifies you to judge a successful operation?

Don't kid yourself you've got an objective perspective, by your own admission you are not even prepared to read other material on the subject.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm sat near in a nightclub on the Bay of Roses and there's a young couple mid 20s sat drinking and with a babyphone, the nearest accommodation is easily 150-200m away. I can only presume they've left their kid alone. Now I don't know where they're staying but maybe there's someone here who does and now knows the kid is on its own. Totally irresponsible.

[Speedway]

Having read significant amounts of articles associated with this case and having read through this thread, I can’t say I’m any closer to understanding what might have happened.

All I can think of is how horrific an experience this young child has had, whatever has taken place.

The one piece of the puzzle that I don’t understand and I apologise if it’s been covered on this thread and I’ve missed it; is how have the McCanns been able to obtain funding for the search for so long?

[Cataplana]

Having read significant amounts of articles associated with this case and having read through this thread, I can’t say I’m any closer to understanding what might have happened.

All I can think of is how horrific an experience this young child has had, whatever has taken place.

The one piece of the puzzle that I don’t understand and I apologise if it’s been covered on this thread and I’ve missed it; is how have the McCanns been able to obtain funding for the search for so long?

Shoot, I thought this had gone to sleep. What you playing at poking my conspiracy theory paranoia into action?

Without published accounts for the fund, or any transparency as to what they are doing to look, it's impossible to say whether they have maintained funding.

Edit: the last paragraph is bollocks, published accounts are available here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history They appear to show around 832k available.

What is known is that the intention of the fund was to cover "legal fees", and they launched a disastrous defamation action against the detective who dared to question their version of events.

(https://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-1.html)They had not anticipated that Portugal would release all of the official files to the public (http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/), and he merely repeated the hypothesis the Portuguese police had reached. This led to a very vicious campaign by "the fund" to discredit this man, and financially ruin him.

Justice was served when the Portuguese Supreme Court said there was nothing false about his book, and also made the clear point that the McCanns have not been cleared of anything at this stage.

They also used it to cover their mortgage costs, and to hire dodgy private detectives in the early days .

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/madeleine-mccann-and-metodo-3-private-eyes-public-lies-xptdh0lttlw

Many speculate that the money has been spent on maintaining their campaign to ensure the story is reported they way they want it. They paid Bell Pottinger 500,000 to keep the story on the front page of the papers for a year.

On the other hand, Brian Kennedy (https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/in-full/rumour-mill-brian-kennedy-ronny-deila-prince-buaben-1-3583802) appears to have bottomless pockets. Charitable funds have been used as money laundering tools in the past, but he is not into that sort of thing, I believe.

None of this makes them guilty of anything, of course. Although I have yet to read anything that backs their version of events that doesn't belong in the realms of the Brothers Grimm, or Walt Disney.

The theory that there was an abduction is yet to be proved, and the only evidence that there was is the word of the two people who would normally be prime suspects .

But, it wasn't them, because they have never been charged with anything. The DNA evidence, and the alerts of Cadaver dogs is unreliable (source: G. McCann). etc

It's a total mystery whether they have been assisted by the British government in avoiding charges in Portugal. I prefer to believe that the cops there eat four hour lunches, are too drunk to organise searches, and fit up honest, hard working, middle class professionals for crimes they didn't commit, rather than rounding up the usual gypsy, dodgy looking crooks that hang about on every corner in Portugal.

ps Everything the British press publish is a lie. (Well worth a read if you get a chance.)


(http://www.lulu.com/shop/paulo-reis/the-mccanns-war/paperback/product-24134465.html)

[Speedway]

Shoot, I thought this had gone to sleep. What you playing at poking my conspiracy theory paranoia into action?

Without published accounts for the fund, or any transparency as to what they are doing to look, it's impossible to say whether they have maintained funding.

Edit: the last paragraph is bollocks, published accounts are available here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history They appear to show around 832k available.

What is known is that the intention of the fund was to cover "legal fees", and they launched a disastrous defamation action against the detective who dared to question their version of events.

(https://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-1.html)They had not anticipated that Portugal would release all of the official files to the public (http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/), and he merely repeated the hypothesis the Portuguese police had reached. This led to a very vicious campaign by "the fund" to discredit this man, and financially ruin him.

Justice was served when the Portuguese Supreme Court said there was nothing false about his book, and also made the clear point that the McCanns have not been cleared of anything at this stage.

They also used it to cover their mortgage costs, and to hire dodgy private detectives in the early days .

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/madeleine-mccann-and-metodo-3-private-eyes-public-lies-xptdh0lttlw

Many speculate that the money has been spent on maintaining their campaign to ensure the story is reported they way they want it. They paid Bell Pottinger 500,000 to keep the story on the front page of the papers for a year.

On the other hand, Brian Kennedy (https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/celtic/in-full/rumour-mill-brian-kennedy-ronny-deila-prince-buaben-1-3583802) appears to have bottomless pockets. Charitable funds have been used as money laundering tools in the past, but he is not into that sort of thing, I believe.

None of this makes them guilty of anything, of course. Although I have yet to read anything that backs their version of events that doesn't belong in the realms of the Brothers Grimm, or Walt Disney.

The theory that there was an abduction is yet to be proved, and the only evidence that there was is the word of the two people who would normally be prime suspects .

But, it wasn't them, because they have never been charged with anything. The DNA evidence, and the alerts of Cadaver dogs is unreliable (source: G. McCann). etc

It's a total mystery whether they have been assisted by the British government in avoiding charges in Portugal. I prefer to believe that the cops there eat four hour lunches, are too drunk to organise searches, and fit up honest, hard working, middle class professionals for crimes they didn't commit, rather than rounding up the usual gypsy, dodgy looking crooks that hang about on every corner in Portugal.

ps Everything the British press publish is a lie. (Well worth a read if you get a chance.)


(http://www.lulu.com/shop/paulo-reis/the-mccanns-war/paperback/product-24134465.html)

Thank you for such a detailed response, Cataplana.

My question was more around the HOW.

How have they been able to secure so much funding for so long when the trail was supposed to have gone cold so quickly?

[Cataplana]

Thank you for such a detailed response, Cataplana.

My question was more around the HOW.

How have they been able to secure so much funding for so long when the trail was supposed to have gone cold so quickly?

As far as the fund goes, contributions have dried up.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7319265/madeleine-mccann-donations-dried-up/

(Yes, I have used an article from the British media I criticised earlier. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and besides, if The Sun is reporting negatively the truth is probably a lot worse .)

If you refer to the ongoing funding of Operation Grange, it's an absolute mystery. This unit has been set up by Scotland Yard to investigate abduction, and abduction only.

They seem to exist to follow up ever more desperate leads generated by the McCanns (maybe). The only explanation is that while there is the slightest chance of identifying an abductor, it prevents Portugal from charging the McCanns.

It's when you look into how the abductor is supposed to have done it, and how he left no fibres or any other forensic trace in the apartment, that you start to question if it could have happened at all.

It's all a bit bizarre and points to a cover up. Of what it's a matter of speculation.

[Speedway]

As far as the fund goes, contributions have dried up.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7319265/madeleine-mccann-donations-dried-up/

(Yes, I have used an article from the British media I criticised earlier. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and besides, if The Sun is reporting negatively the truth is probably a lot worse .)

If you refer to the ongoing funding of Operation Grange, it's an absolute mystery. This unit has been set up by Scotland Yard to investigate abduction, and abduction only.

They seem to exist to follow up ever more desperate leads generated by the McCanns (maybe). The only explanation is that while there is the slightest chance of identifying an abductor, it prevents Portugal from charging the McCanns.

It's when you look into how the abductor is supposed to have done it, and how he left no fibres or any other forensic trace in the apartment, that you start to question if it could have happened at all.

It's all a bit bizarre and points to a cover up. Of what it's a matter of speculation.

Thank you again.

Why does Scotland Yard wish to protect the McCanns from being charged?

[Cataplana]

Thank you again.

Why does Scotland Yard wish to protect the McCanns from being charged?

I have no idea, and am not even certain they do (want to protect them - they could be eliminating any possible defence they could offer in a criminal trial.)

As I say, the brief for their investigation is flawed in that it excludes them from any line of enquiry that involves investigating the parents. Portugal has already made it clear they don't believe the abduction theory.

I'll leave it to you to investigate the various conspiracy theories. Personally, I think it was a simple error of judgement by Gordon Brown, tieing himself so closely to the case

By the time it appeared they were wrong 'uns, it was too late to get out. There is also the possibility that they were used as collateral in some diplomatic deal .

Another theory is that someone in their group is being protected as they could have "a dodgy past" involving children, which may surface if investigation goes to deep.

The thing is, the longer Operation Grange go on wild goose chases, the more suspects they eliminate, the more likely it has to be that something else happened.

As Sherlock Holmes says, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

So, that is a good reason for guilty people to keep the search focussed elsewhere. The thing is, they must be at the stage of interviewing every male that was in Portugal at the time by now.

[matty_f]

Thank you for such a detailed response, Cataplana.

My question was more around the HOW.

How have they been able to secure so much funding for so long when the trail was supposed to have gone cold so quickly?


Detailed response, but very one-sided. :wink:

[matty_f]

Thank you again.

Why does Scotland Yard wish to protect the McCanns from being charged?

They don't - they want to solve a crime.

If there was compelling evidence that the McCanns were responsible then it would have been followed up (as would the Portugese police).

I'm not sure how the police operation has been given as much funding as it has, or how that compares with other, similar, missing child cases, but I would have thought that if it was all a massive cover-up, they'd probably want to stop spending money on it by now.

[Cataplana]

Detailed response, but very one-sided. :wink:

Almost as one sided and biased as that Netflix documentary you use as your main point of reference, Matty. I am not funded by the McCanns though. Out of interest have you read Amaral's book, or anything else yet?

Feel free to debunk anything I said, using source material such as the PJ Files. :greengrin

"I think" or "it just couldn't happen" is not really worth a jot.

One thing I really struggle with is how the abductor got in and out in the time window available without being spotted and without leaving any forensic trace

[Cataplana]

They don't - they want to solve a crime.

If there was compelling evidence that the McCanns were responsible then it would have been followed up (as would the Portugese police).

w.

It's things like this. Says who? Why would you think that when we know about so many cover ups and miscarriages of justice? More to the point, why is the Portuguese file still open, and why did the Supreme Court refuse to state the McCanns have been cleared?"

Using your logic there would bie crimunal prosecutions over Hillsborough, 30 years ago, and the Birmingham Six would still be in jail.

If you're going to mock me, and accuse me of bias, back your attacks up with some semblance of facts and logic. :aok:.

[The Baldmans Comb]

Thank you Cataplana. Your analysis of this case has been absolutely exemplary.

Its been throughly fascinating watch you pick through the detail of this case from all sides and then step by step reach your conclusions.

Real investigative journalism died a death in all areas of society many years ago. Mores the pity.

Can I ask you about the book published by the Portuguese detective and vindicated as not defamatory towards the McCanns by the Portuguese Supreme court.

The McCanns seemed to have successfully stopped the publication of Mr Amarals account and effectively blocked the English media from covering the story from the Portuguese angle if indeed they ever felt any inclination.

This book does however seem to be freely available and how does this tie in with the human rights case that hasn't yet come to a conclusion.

[bigwheel]

Thank you Cataplana. Your analysis of this case has been absolutely exemplary.

Its been throughly fascinating watch you pick through the detail of this case from all sides and then step by step reach your conclusions.

Real investigative journalism died a death in all areas of society many years ago. Mores the pity.

Can I ask you about the book published by the Portuguese detective and vindicated as not defamatory towards the McCanns by the Portuguese Supreme court.

The McCanns seemed to have successfully stopped the publication of Mr Amarals account and effectively blocked the English media from covering the story from the Portuguese angle if indeed they ever felt any inclination.

This book does however seem to be freely available and how does this tie in with the human rights case that hasn't yet come to a conclusion.

It’s certainly detailed and interesting that’s for sure ...lots of respect for that - an intense focus that I suspect few have ....it does lack balance though - it isn’t neutral - seem to always come from a protectionist or supportive premise that the Portuguese involved were correct , did little (nothing?) wrong and pose much more questions and challenge on the Family than that of the investigation and authorities for me .....

[matty_f]

Almost as one sided and biased as that Netflix documentary you use as your main point of reference, Matty. I am not funded by the McCanns though. Out of interest have you read Amaral's book, or anything else yet?

Feel free to debunk anything I said, using source material such as the PJ Files. :greengrin

"I think" or "it just couldn't happen" is not really worth a jot.

One thing I really struggle with is how the abductor got in and out in the time window available without being spotted and without leaving any forensic trace

I’m not basing it on the Netflix documentary, at least not my whole views on the matter.

Maybe she wasn’t abducted? I think that’s the most plausible scenario but everything is hypothetical and the police will have tested each hypothesis.

With respect to the cover ups, you know they were cover ups because they were found out when independent people got involved in looking into what happened.

Plenty of folk have come into the McCann case, I’m very confident that the idea that the McCanns are not being protected by the authorities and ad I’ve said before it is pretty nuts to suggest they are.

[matty_f]

It's things like this. Says who? Why would you think that when we know about so many cover ups and miscarriages of justice? More to the point, why is the Portuguese file still open, and why did the Supreme Court refuse to state the McCanns have been cleared?"

Using your logic there would bie crimunal prosecutions over Hillsborough, 30 years ago, and the Birmingham Six would still be in jail.

If you're going to mock me, and accuse me of bias, back your attacks up with some semblance of facts and logic. :aok:.

The McCanns haven’t been cleared or even tried for any crime relating to the disappearance so the Supreme Court is in no position to clear them.