In 2008, a Portuguese TV interviewer asked: “How can you explain the scent of cadaver found by the British dogs?” Kate McCann replied: “Maybe you should ask the judiciary. They have examined all evidence”. When the interviewer pressed Kate McCann for an explanation, Gerry McCann intervened, smirking, and replied: “Ask the dogs, Sandra”.
:rolleyes: (that's not aimed at you!) theres the reaction of two innocent parents who will "leave no stone unturned in our search for Madeleine"*
*unless it involves a reconstruction and co- operating fully with the police.
Actually, they don't come to distinctly different conclusions at all.
context context. i said the conclusions of those two reports were different from amarals 'conclusion'
So, no evidence of any crime. Which is different to, “no evidence of any crime committed by the mccanns”.
well thats a slightly bizarre interpretation to decide to detach the comments from the person(s) when they are made directly in relation to them, and elsewhere the report continues to refer to a crime (unknown) having clearly been committed (after all, the child is missing....)
And Amaral was replaced, not sacked.
well he would say that....
but we are agreed he's a convicted criminal, right? corruption.
context context. i said the conclusions of those two reports were different from amarals 'conclusion'
well thats a slightly bizarre interpretation to decide to detach the comments from the person(s) when they are made directly in relation to them, and elsewhere the report continues to refer to a crime (unknown) having clearly been committed (after all, the child is missing....)
well he would say that....
but we are agreed he's a convicted criminal, right? corruption.
I don't agree with Amaral's theory - but there has never been any suggestion that he did anything untoward in the Maddie case - even from McCann lawyers. It was all solid police work.
Personally I can't see how tourists could have successfully disposed of a body. But I'm almost certain there was a dead body in the apartment - and in the absence of any other explanation sadly it must have been Maddie. She probably disturbed an intruder who killed her perhaps unintentionally then removed the evidence. Since then the Mccanns have been in denial that their negligence had this result and have spun any number of fairy tales which blame everyone but themselves.
The real shame is that the Tapas 9's evasiveness seriously hindered the investigation.
I have never understood why they haven't cooperated by doing reconstructions and speaking to the Police.
I would have done anything that was asked for my child or a friends child.
Its another thing to add to a long list of peculiar behaviour from the whole group . The list grows and some people wonder why many question the whole sorry tale .
Too many strange behaviour episodes will naturally lead to doubt . I can except that people are all different but I find it mind blowing that a whole group can all act evasively and stubbornly when a child is missing and in danger .
I have never understood why they haven't cooperated by doing reconstructions and speaking to the Police.
I would have done anything that was asked for my child or a friends child.
Wouldn't saying they will return for a reconstruction automatically re-open the case, as the lack of reconstruction was one of the big stumbling blocks originally - or have I got that wrong?
If so, it would seem a far easier way then all this we've asked/no they haven't pantomine stuff being played out over the last week or more.
Its another thing to add to a long list of peculiar behaviour from the whole group . The list grows and some people wonder why many question the whole sorry tale .
Too many strange behaviour episodes will naturally lead to doubt . I can except that people are all different but I find it mind blowing that a whole group can all act evasively and stubbornly when a child is missing and in danger .
This is the reason why I think certain key witnesses know she is dead.
I have never understood why they haven't cooperated by doing reconstructions and speaking to the Police.
I would have done anything that was asked for my child or a friends child.
I agree, what really gets me is that they dont REACT like the way normal parents would do if they were in that situation.
In fact they seem to act in the opposite way that they should.
As for leaving them alone in the unlocked apartment is frightening alone there was a kitchen with a cooker gas/electric I dont know and I believe one of the neighbour`s said one of the children had been crying for about three quarters of an hour the night before and Maddie had asked `Why did`nt you come` to her mother or `Why didn`t anybody come`
Wouldn't saying they will return for a reconstruction automatically re-open the case, as the lack of reconstruction was one of the big stumbling blocks originally - or have I got that wrong?
If so, it would seem a far easier way then all this we've asked/no they haven't pantomine stuff being played out over the last week or more.
I do wonder how accurate a reconstruction could be so many years on. The line between reality and imagination becomes more blurry with time.
Also, I wonder about the '15 minute' check. From personal experience I can say to my hubby, I'm just popping to the shops, I'll be back in 10 mins', really believing I will be, but time flies, I get distracted, and that 10 mins turns into 20, 30. How easily, especially if wine is consumed, can that 15 mins check become a gap of 20 then 25 mins?
I do wonder how accurate a reconstruction could be so many years on. The line between reality and imagination becomes more blurry with time.
Also, I wonder about the '15 minute' check. From personal experience I can say to my hubby, I'm just popping to the shops, I'll be back in 10 mins', really believing I will be, but time flies, I get distracted, and that 10 mins turns into 20, 30. How easily, especially if wine is consumed, can that 15 mins check become a gap of 20 then 25 mins?
Just general thoughts.
They don't need to remember though (although you would have thought that night would be burned into their brain) they have their statements given to the Police at the time and in the Rogatories.
All they have to do is work to those and see what happens, for a start off.
Firstly I think that the abductor theory is possible, but not using the 15 minute "time of opportunity" the parents insist happened. I think that as they were out every night without the children, it is likely that some other tourists staying there, and hotel staff, were aware that the children were left alone everynight. Staff would know that the children hadn't been booked into the creche or babysitting service, so any staff seeing the McCanns and co dining out, would know the children were left alone. Someone could have innocently (or not so innocently) mentioned to other people about young children being left alone - thus giving an abductor an opportunity to act. In addition, with Maddy being heard crying for 45 minutes the previous night, it would be obvious to anyone nearby that the children were not regularly checked. I think, therefore, that anyone who wanted to take a child would have the time and opportunity - probably a couple of hours as some witnesses said that nobody checked the children for ages that night.
Secondly, it seems strange that Maddy was awake and crying for so long the night before, but was apparently asleep straight away the following night, and neither parent obviously expected her to wake up whilst they were out. How could they be so sure? Here I think it is possible that the children could have been given something to help them sleep, which would explain why the twins slept so long that night. That would also help the abductor (if there was one) as neither Maddy nor the twins would have woken up.
However, I also believe it was possible for Maddy to have woken up and had a fatal accident. She could have been drowsy from whatever medication she had been given and stumbled down the stairs. The police theory is also plausible - that she stood on top of the sofa and tried to look out of the window when she heard her dad talking in the street below. She could have lost her balance and hit her head on the stone floor, therefore being dead by the time she was actually checked.
She may have managed to get out of the apartment, over the child gate, and wondered off looking for her parents, perhaps wandered onto the beach and been washed out to sea, or accidently run over by someone who panicked and took her body with them to dump elsewhere.
For both of these scenarios, she could have been dead for most of the evening and any checks done were very perfunctionay - people just listening at doors, not looking in - so even if checks had been done every 15 minutes, she could have been missing or dead the entire time.
I also think the parents acted very strangely afterwards, especially all the travelling they did whilst leaving their remaining children behind within days of losing a child. There is something not right about any of it, them or their friends with me.
I do believe that even if they are not directly responsible for her disappearance (apart from the neglect obviously) I do think the entire group have lied about times and movements in order to save their own skins, once they knew they'd be in big trouble for leaving their children unattended.
I made a donation to their fund... which I later found out was in fact a limited company.
So I believe that I am entitled to ask why my, and many others' donations which were given in good faith, are being used on legal fees to sue anyone who questions their abduction story. The donations were meant to help in finding Madeleine, not on litigation.
Also, why did their friends refuse to attend a reconstruction when requested to by the PT police in 2008?
Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer 40-odd questions put to her by the PT police?
I will not be making any further donations to their limited company so they can spend it on suing people who question their story.
Its another thing to add to a long list of peculiar behaviour from the whole group . The list grows and some people wonder why many question the whole sorry tale .
Too many strange behaviour episodes will naturally lead to doubt . I can except that people are all different but I find it mind blowing that a whole group can all act evasively and stubbornly when a child is missing and in danger .
Even stranger to suspect that the whole group was in some way involved in Madeleine's death or at least a cover up of what happened. That beggars belief.
Even stranger to suspect that the whole group was in some way involved in Madeleine's death or at least a cover up of what happened. That beggars belief.
What beggars belief is that the friends refused to do a reconstruction.
I made a donation to their fund... which I later found out was in fact a limited company. So I believe that I am entitled to ask why my, and many others' donations which were given in good faith, are being used on legal fees to sue anyone who questions their abduction story. The donations were meant to help in finding Madeleine, not on litigation.
VERY pertinent post Yootha. Why do the press not pick up on this? Surely it is VERY newsworthy?
And what about the police: think about "follow the money..."
What beggars belief is that the friends refused to do a reconstruction.
It does begger belief that they are still apparently all still friends as well.
Really - if it was the not returning for a reconstruction that effectively closed the case - wouldn't you be begging that people went - and if they didn't how could you still be friends?
Even stranger to suspect that the whole group was in some way involved in Madeleine's death or at least a cover up of what happened. That beggars belief.
For me it beggars belive that the whole group refused to co operate in a reconstruction .And that the Mc Canns didnt plead and beg them too
VERY pertinent post Yootha. Why do the press not pick up on this? Surely it is VERY newsworthy?
And what about the police: think about "follow the money..."
I have been deceived. I gave that money in good faith and now I see that there have been several litigation cases both in the UK and Portugal. That was NOT what my donation, and no doubt the donations of many others, was for.
For me it beggars belive that the whole group refused to co operate in a reconstruction .
I get the impression that they thought the Portuguese investigation was a shambles right from the beginning and so started to refuse to cooperate. I do think the police wasted valuable searching time by automatically assuming the family were involved. Similar happened with regards to Ben Needham. They made the family suspects right from the word go and precious time was also wasted. Eventually they tried to pin the blame on Ben's uncle. I just don't think that these police forces are as organised and as thorough as what they should be.
I get the impression that they thought the Portuguese investigation was a shambles right from the beginning and so started to refuse to cooperate. I do think the police wasted valuable searching time by automatically assuming the family were involved. Similar happened with regards to Ben Needham. They made the family suspects right from the word go and precious time was also wasted. Eventually they tried to pin the blame on Ben's uncle. I just don't think that these police forces are as organised and as thorough as what they should be.
I get the impression that they thought the Portuguese investigation was a shambles right from the beginning and so started to refuse to cooperate. I do think the police wasted valuable searching time by automatically assuming the family were involved. Similar happened with regards to Ben Needham. They made the family suspects right from the word go and precious time was also wasted. Eventually they tried to pin the blame on Ben's uncle. I just don't think that these police forces are as organised and as thorough as what they should be.
Who the hell in their right mind would "start to refuse to co-operate" in the case of a missing child?
I have been deceived. I gave that money in good faith and now I see that there have been several litigation cases both in the UK and Portugal. That was NOT what my donation, and no doubt the donations of many others, was for.
As I posted before, the Mccanns are spending time and money taking a retired lawyer to court for questioning their version of events. He faces prison, significant costs or both. Carter Ruck have stated that their current costs are exceeding £120,000 before it even gets to court.
How does this help find Maddie?
There's a You-Tube of a dad who's daughter was abducted and then murdered. He basically says, if the parents need to call in the services of a lawyer, you need to question their innocence.
Comments
:rolleyes: (that's not aimed at you!) theres the reaction of two innocent parents who will "leave no stone unturned in our search for Madeleine"*
*unless it involves a reconstruction and co- operating fully with the police.
Just my opinion.
context context. i said the conclusions of those two reports were different from amarals 'conclusion'
well thats a slightly bizarre interpretation to decide to detach the comments from the person(s) when they are made directly in relation to them, and elsewhere the report continues to refer to a crime (unknown) having clearly been committed (after all, the child is missing....)
well he would say that....
but we are agreed he's a convicted criminal, right? corruption.
I don't agree with Amaral's theory - but there has never been any suggestion that he did anything untoward in the Maddie case - even from McCann lawyers. It was all solid police work.
Personally I can't see how tourists could have successfully disposed of a body. But I'm almost certain there was a dead body in the apartment - and in the absence of any other explanation sadly it must have been Maddie. She probably disturbed an intruder who killed her perhaps unintentionally then removed the evidence. Since then the Mccanns have been in denial that their negligence had this result and have spun any number of fairy tales which blame everyone but themselves.
The real shame is that the Tapas 9's evasiveness seriously hindered the investigation.
I would have done anything that was asked for my child or a friends child.
Its another thing to add to a long list of peculiar behaviour from the whole group . The list grows and some people wonder why many question the whole sorry tale .
Too many strange behaviour episodes will naturally lead to doubt . I can except that people are all different but I find it mind blowing that a whole group can all act evasively and stubbornly when a child is missing and in danger .
Wouldn't saying they will return for a reconstruction automatically re-open the case, as the lack of reconstruction was one of the big stumbling blocks originally - or have I got that wrong?
If so, it would seem a far easier way then all this we've asked/no they haven't pantomine stuff being played out over the last week or more.
This is the reason why I think certain key witnesses know she is dead.
I agree, what really gets me is that they dont REACT like the way normal parents would do if they were in that situation.
In fact they seem to act in the opposite way that they should.
As for leaving them alone in the unlocked apartment is frightening alone there was a kitchen with a cooker gas/electric I dont know and I believe one of the neighbour`s said one of the children had been crying for about three quarters of an hour the night before and Maddie had asked `Why did`nt you come` to her mother or `Why didn`t anybody come`
I do wonder how accurate a reconstruction could be so many years on. The line between reality and imagination becomes more blurry with time.
Also, I wonder about the '15 minute' check. From personal experience I can say to my hubby, I'm just popping to the shops, I'll be back in 10 mins', really believing I will be, but time flies, I get distracted, and that 10 mins turns into 20, 30. How easily, especially if wine is consumed, can that 15 mins check become a gap of 20 then 25 mins?
Just general thoughts.
They don't need to remember though (although you would have thought that night would be burned into their brain) they have their statements given to the Police at the time and in the Rogatories.
All they have to do is work to those and see what happens, for a start off.
Firstly I think that the abductor theory is possible, but not using the 15 minute "time of opportunity" the parents insist happened. I think that as they were out every night without the children, it is likely that some other tourists staying there, and hotel staff, were aware that the children were left alone everynight. Staff would know that the children hadn't been booked into the creche or babysitting service, so any staff seeing the McCanns and co dining out, would know the children were left alone. Someone could have innocently (or not so innocently) mentioned to other people about young children being left alone - thus giving an abductor an opportunity to act. In addition, with Maddy being heard crying for 45 minutes the previous night, it would be obvious to anyone nearby that the children were not regularly checked. I think, therefore, that anyone who wanted to take a child would have the time and opportunity - probably a couple of hours as some witnesses said that nobody checked the children for ages that night.
Secondly, it seems strange that Maddy was awake and crying for so long the night before, but was apparently asleep straight away the following night, and neither parent obviously expected her to wake up whilst they were out. How could they be so sure? Here I think it is possible that the children could have been given something to help them sleep, which would explain why the twins slept so long that night. That would also help the abductor (if there was one) as neither Maddy nor the twins would have woken up.
However, I also believe it was possible for Maddy to have woken up and had a fatal accident. She could have been drowsy from whatever medication she had been given and stumbled down the stairs. The police theory is also plausible - that she stood on top of the sofa and tried to look out of the window when she heard her dad talking in the street below. She could have lost her balance and hit her head on the stone floor, therefore being dead by the time she was actually checked.
She may have managed to get out of the apartment, over the child gate, and wondered off looking for her parents, perhaps wandered onto the beach and been washed out to sea, or accidently run over by someone who panicked and took her body with them to dump elsewhere.
For both of these scenarios, she could have been dead for most of the evening and any checks done were very perfunctionay - people just listening at doors, not looking in - so even if checks had been done every 15 minutes, she could have been missing or dead the entire time.
I also think the parents acted very strangely afterwards, especially all the travelling they did whilst leaving their remaining children behind within days of losing a child. There is something not right about any of it, them or their friends with me.
I do believe that even if they are not directly responsible for her disappearance (apart from the neglect obviously) I do think the entire group have lied about times and movements in order to save their own skins, once they knew they'd be in big trouble for leaving their children unattended.
So I believe that I am entitled to ask why my, and many others' donations which were given in good faith, are being used on legal fees to sue anyone who questions their abduction story. The donations were meant to help in finding Madeleine, not on litigation.
Also, why did their friends refuse to attend a reconstruction when requested to by the PT police in 2008?
Why did Kate McCann refuse to answer 40-odd questions put to her by the PT police?
I will not be making any further donations to their limited company so they can spend it on suing people who question their story.
and I agree whole heartedly
Even stranger to suspect that the whole group was in some way involved in Madeleine's death or at least a cover up of what happened. That beggars belief.
What beggars belief is that the friends refused to do a reconstruction.
VERY pertinent post Yootha. Why do the press not pick up on this? Surely it is VERY newsworthy?
And what about the police: think about "follow the money..."
You are right in the fact that you forget the details.
It does begger belief that they are still apparently all still friends as well.
Really - if it was the not returning for a reconstruction that effectively closed the case - wouldn't you be begging that people went - and if they didn't how could you still be friends?
For me it beggars belive that the whole group refused to co operate in a reconstruction .And that the Mc Canns didnt plead and beg them too
I have been deceived. I gave that money in good faith and now I see that there have been several litigation cases both in the UK and Portugal. That was NOT what my donation, and no doubt the donations of many others, was for.
I get the impression that they thought the Portuguese investigation was a shambles right from the beginning and so started to refuse to cooperate. I do think the police wasted valuable searching time by automatically assuming the family were involved. Similar happened with regards to Ben Needham. They made the family suspects right from the word go and precious time was also wasted. Eventually they tried to pin the blame on Ben's uncle. I just don't think that these police forces are as organised and as thorough as what they should be.
I agree entirely.
Who the hell in their right mind would "start to refuse to co-operate" in the case of a missing child?
Even odder was when they all met up at a hotel months later. Clarence Mitchell denied it was about getting their stories straight.
As I posted before, the Mccanns are spending time and money taking a retired lawyer to court for questioning their version of events. He faces prison, significant costs or both. Carter Ruck have stated that their current costs are exceeding £120,000 before it even gets to court.
How does this help find Maddie?
There's a You-Tube of a dad who's daughter was abducted and then murdered. He basically says, if the parents need to call in the services of a lawyer, you need to question their innocence.