hibs.net Messageboard

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 242
  1. #121
    @hibs.net private member Moulin Yarns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Spinning a Yarn
    Posts
    13,587
    Quote Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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. 😉
    #Persevered
    Scotland can be a beacon, within these islands and beyond, for a socially just and sustainable society. Whilst there are many priorities which will require independence, there is also much that can and must be done now by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #122
    @hibs.net private member oldbutdim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,239
    Quote Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  4. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  5. #124
    @hibs.net private member speedy_gonzales's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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!

  6. #125
    Private Members Prediction League Winner Hibrandenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brandenburg
    Posts
    10,919
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbutdim View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just to be absolutely clear here, I am not Speedy's dad.

  7. #126
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    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.

  8. #127
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    38,295
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by G B Young View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  9. #128
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    38,295
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  10. #129
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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..

  11. #130
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Last edited by Cataplana; 15-04-2019 at 06:05 PM.

  12. #131
    Testimonial Due HibbyCal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,070
    Gamer IDs

    PSN ID: calhill19
    Quote Originally Posted by G B Young View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  13. #132
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by HibbyCal View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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 ??

  14. #133
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?
    Last edited by Cataplana; 18-04-2019 at 08:19 AM.

  15. #134
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    38,295
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  16. #135
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by HibbyCal View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by G B Young View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?
    Last edited by Cataplana; 18-04-2019 at 10:21 AM.

  17. #136
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    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/ne...e-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?

  18. #137
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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 ?

  19. #138
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  20. #139
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You would think.
    Doesn’t that contradict your point then ?

  21. #140
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  22. #141
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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 ..

  23. #142
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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?



  24. #143
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    38,295
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  25. #144
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    7,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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 ...

  26. #145
    First Team Regular Sioux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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/ne...e-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.

  27. #146
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    38,295
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

  28. #147
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Had she already answered the questions in earlier statements?

    Presumably the Police would have taken most of those details early on in the investigation, in fact probably as early as when they first arrived at the scene and were establishing what happened.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sioux View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Last edited by Cataplana; 18-04-2019 at 11:51 AM.

  29. #148
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Last edited by Cataplana; 18-04-2019 at 11:53 AM.

  30. #149
    Administrator matty_f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    38,295
    Blog Entries
    1
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: franck sauzee
    Quote Originally Posted by Cataplana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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".

  31. #150
    First Team Breakthrough Cataplana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Skating on thin ice.
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by matty_f View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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