Madeleine:The Last Hope ? BBC1 25/4/12

1141517192052

Comments

  • Abbasolutely 40Abbasolutely 40 Posts: 15,589
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think motive is fairly important from those speculating about the McCanns involvement. As are means and opportunity. But everybody starts backing off and going all 'we never' when I raise these points!

    And you backed away from my previous post asking you a question . Leave aside the whole speculation and concentrate on facts and I am interested to know you view .

    So , how do you feel about the fact that two doctors ( I say doctors to make a point that they should have known better ) took a risk with three small children .
    Leave aside the " abductor " and I just ask how you feel about the carelessnes and selfishness leaving children open to major risks. Risks like , fire , vomiting , choking , falling , seizing , terror , fright , or very simple crying for their Mummy ?

    Yes , you may argue that they paid the ultimate price for the sheer neglect and selfish behaviour , but that doesnt excuse it . In my opinion Madeleine paid the ultimate price of her parents who chose dinner with friends ahead of the risks they bloody well should have seen .

    How much sympathy would they have got if , having left their children , one of them fell down the steep concrete steps and broke their neck ? Yet they ran that risk too , luckily it didnt happen to one of them ,.Would you then give them the sympathy and understanding for running that risk ?

    I saw that apartment and I wouldnt have left my money or credit cards in it exposed to the public, let alone my precious children .I would rather starve to be honest . How do you feel about these facts ?
  • sofieellissofieellis Posts: 10,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Portuguese police are not re-opening the case
    Portuguese authorities say they are not reopening their investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    The attorney-general's office said this would only happen if there were "new, credible and relevant facts and not mere hypotheses or speculations".

    I'm really confused as to what the point of the programme was :confused:
  • HotgossipHotgossip Posts: 22,385
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am sure many of you will have read the Gaspar Statements.
    If not google it. Not sure what to make of it TBH.
  • Abbasolutely 40Abbasolutely 40 Posts: 15,589
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sofieellis wrote: »
    Portuguese police are not re-opening the case



    I'm really confused as to what the point of the programme was :confused:

    It realy was very poorly researched and nothing of interest came from it at all I felt .
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    Okay, Have it your way. They killed Madeleine just before they went to dinner. And then, somehow, they disposed of the body in about an hour flat and the whole world has found no trace. Well, aren't they the clever ones.

    But look at the McCanns' version that we are being asked to believe. That a child abductor entered the appartment, which he had no reason to expect to be unlocked, picked up a child, left without alerting the other 2 children, carried her away with no-one noticing (other than the Tanner 'sighting' which has changed dramatically over time) and got clean away.

    This same intruder left no forensic evidence whatsoever and has never been found or even identified, despite intensive international police effort. The version in your post is just as incredible (or credible, as no-one knows what really happened) as the McCanns' version of events.

    God knows we've seen some ludicrous conspiracy theorists on DS but this is different. On other CTs, people are queuing up to debunk the CTers evidence with concrete facts, backed up by credible sources. This simply does not happen when the disappearance of Madelaine McCann is discussed - look at this thread.

    Sure, threads get derailed by arguing over whether the parents were negligent in leaving the kids unattended in the first place or the rubbish over friends in high places but, for me, these are not the key issues. The key issues are the absence of any evidence to support the official version of events, coupled with a huge number of factors either inconsistent with that version or actively mitigating against it.
  • fifilapewfifilapew Posts: 4,390
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The 7500 copies of Amarals book are finally to be returned to the publishers today.

    I wonder if this has anything to do with the programme seemingly being 'rushed' out yesterday?
  • Loz KernowLoz Kernow Posts: 2,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It realy was very poorly researched and nothing of interest came from it at all I felt .

    I think it's safe to say that they didn't do any real research whatsoever. It was a lazy mix of re-hashed bits and clips of the PdL beach. Worse than that, it contained errors (open window, DNA dogs etc)

    Am I alone in thinking that this programme was below par for Panorama?

    In the right hands the facts of this case could make an interesting - and possibly helpful - documentary.

    But thanks to Carter Ruck I won't hold my breath.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 160
    Forum Member
    On the point of motive - many crimes are solved & a motive never fully established. Correct me if I'm wrong using this as an example - The Jo Yeates murder, did Tabak reveal a motive ?

    Also the Soham murders, The Moors Murders, even James Bulger - we know who committed these crimes yet not exactly how/why they happened, just theories.

    To be clear here, I am NOT saying we know who committed a crime regarding Madeleine, just saying in some cases we never know why for certain.
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    On the point of motive - many crimes are solved & a motive never fully established. Correct me if I'm wrong using this as an example - The Jo Yeates murder, did Tabak reveal a motive ?

    Also the Soham murders, The Moors Murders, even James Bulger - we know who committed these crimes yet not exactly how/why they happened, just theories.

    To be clear here, I am NOT saying we know who committed a crime regarding Madeleine, just saying in some cases we never know why for certain.

    Actually, I disagree because I can think of very few entirely motiveless crimes. I don't think your examples are appropriate. With Tabak it seems clear it was a sexual advance gone wrong followed by panic. Soham is similar, although with children. Moors - well there is a huge amount of documentation about the depraved desires of Brady and Hindley. Bulger is simply children with violent backgrounds and no boundaries.
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But look at the McCanns' version that we are being asked to believe. That a child abductor entered the appartment, which he had no reason to expect to be unlocked, picked up a child, left without alerting the other 2 children, carried her away with no-one noticing (other than the Tanner 'sighting' which has changed dramatically over time) and got clean away.

    This same intruder left no forensic evidence whatsoever and has never been found or even identified, despite intensive international police effort. The version in your post is just as incredible (or credible, as no-one knows what really happened) as the McCanns' version of events.

    God knows we've seen some ludicrous conspiracy theorists on DS but this is different. On other CTs, people are queuing up to debunk the CTers evidence with concrete facts, backed up by credible sources. This simply does not happen when the disappearance of Madelaine McCann is discussed - look at this thread.

    Sure, threads get derailed by arguing over whether the parents were negligent in leaving the kids unattended in the first place or the rubbish over friends in high places but, for me, these are not the key issues. The key issues are the absence of any evidence to support the official version of events, coupled with a huge number of factors either inconsistent with that version or actively mitigating against it.

    I don't think the idea of an intruder is at all fantastic. For all we know the children may well have been left alone on other nights. This is a well-known holiday complex filled with young children and would therefore be an obvious target for anyone wanting to abduct or harm a child. Lack of forensic evidence? Well, hardly surprising when what passes for a police force in Portugal didn't seal the crime scene off until sixteen hours later.
  • queeniequeenie Posts: 401
    Forum Member
    There's no motive for murder, because there was no murder. The original police report concluded that Madeleine suffered a tragic fatal accident while unattended in her apartment.

    The consequences of such an incident coming to light would provide a very compelling motive for concealing it. Imprisonment, other kids taken into care, lifelong disgrace and utter professional ruin.
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Loz Kernow wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that they didn't do any real research whatsoever. It was a lazy mix of re-hashed bits and clips of the PdL beach. Worse than that, it contained errors (open window, DNA dogs etc)

    Am I alone in thinking that this programme was below par for Panorama?

    In the right hands the facts of this case could make an interesting - and possibly helpful - documentary.

    But thanks to Carter Ruck I won't hold my breath.

    I so agree with you. An entirely lightweight programme not worthy of the Panorama name
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And you backed away from my previous post asking you a question . Leave aside the whole speculation and concentrate on facts and I am interested to know you view .

    So , how do you feel about the fact that two doctors ( I say doctors to make a point that they should have known better ) took a risk with three small children .
    Leave aside the " abductor " and I just ask how you feel about the carelessnes and selfishness leaving children open to major risks. Risks like , fire , vomiting , choking , falling , seizing , terror , fright , or very simple crying for their Mummy ?

    Yes , you may argue that they paid the ultimate price for the sheer neglect and selfish behaviour , but that doesnt excuse it . In my opinion Madeleine paid the ultimate price of her parents who chose dinner with friends ahead of the risks they bloody well should have seen .

    How much sympathy would they have got if , having left their children , one of them fell down the steep concrete steps and broke their neck ? Yet they ran that risk too , luckily it didnt happen to one of them ,.Would you then give them the sympathy and understanding for running that risk ?

    I saw that apartment and I wouldnt have left my money or credit cards in it exposed to the public, let alone my precious children .I would rather starve to be honest . How do you feel about these facts ?

    Fairly obviously, I was appalled that the kids were left alone. I cannot fathom it but it is done in that kind of resort a lot - the McCanns are not unique. My point is that their recklessness with their daughter's safety does not make them murderers and I wonder at the vehemence with which so many people on here protest that they would never have done such a thing.
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    queenie wrote: »
    There's no motive for murder, because there was no murder. The original police report concluded that Madeleine suffered a tragic fatal accident while unattended in her apartment.

    The consequences of such an incident coming to light would provide a very compelling motive for concealing it. Imprisonment, other kids taken into care, lifelong disgrace and utter professional ruin.

    No, because as doctors they would have been able to handle it. But - the big point here is they say a fatal accident whilst left alone. As the total time she was alone was less than 2 hrs, how did they get away with the body and hide it so well that nobody in the whole world can find it? Whilst sitting at a restaurant table with friends for most of the time period. Ludicrous.
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Interesting article. I am not saying they detected Madeleines death scent. The point is they found a smell of death on a number of possessions & locations connected to the McCanns. No-one else, no place else. Thats a lot of bad luck/coincidences. Two properties, a car, clothing & a toy. The fact the car the scent was detected in was rented after she disappeared is the Polices fault how ? Should they have not checked it ? Surely the question should be why is it there ?

    From what I've read the police said that forensic evidence showed the presence of Madeleine's body in the boot of the car about five weeks after she disappeared. How could that be right if they hired the car a couple of weeks after that night? Unless people believe that the McCanns were playing hide and seek with their daughter's body in full view of the world's media. Also, not long after, the head of the police cautioned that the tests had not been conclusive and forensic science experts pointed to the dangers of contamination. Now, if all that is dodgy then what else is too?
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    From what I've read the police said that forensic evidence showed the presence of Madeleine's body in the boot of the car about five weeks after she disappeared. How could that be right if they hired the car a couple of weeks after that night? Unless people believe that the McCanns were playing hide and seek with their daughter's body in full view of the world's media. Also, not long after, the head of the police cautioned that the tests had not been conclusive and forensic science experts pointed to the dangers of contamination. Now, if all that is dodgy then what else is too?

    Everything the Portugese police say is dodgy. And they have a motive - covering up their own incompetence. Yeah, perhaps all the time the McCanns were driving around the resort with their daughter's body in the boot of the car (presumably in the dry ice that they just happened to have handy_
  • Trsvis_BickleTrsvis_Bickle Posts: 9,202
    Forum Member
    I don't think the idea of an intruder is at all fantastic. For all we know the children may well have been left alone on other nights. This is a well-known holiday complex filled with young children and would therefore be an obvious target for anyone wanting to abduct or harm a child. Lack of forensic evidence? Well, hardly surprising when what passes for a police force in Portugal didn't seal the crime scene off until sixteen hours later.

    Fantastic is an apt adjective. Genuine child abduction by a stranger is incredibly rare - statistically almost unknown. Have you ever heard of a holiday complex or any other location being 'targeted' by an abductor? I never have and if there was evidence for it happening in reality, surely the media would have found evidence of similar attempts?Genuine stranger child abduction is invariably opportunistic, not pre-planned. If you wanted to get hold of a white, European child and were so skilled at doing so as to pass completely undetected, surely you'd also be clever enough to choose a much less risky location than a holiday complex with adults checking on your target at regular intervals?

    Even after contamination of a crime scene, forensic evidence remains. It is not removed by contamination, just a bit more difficult to find.

    Clutch at straws all you like - the official version just doesn't stack up.
  • stash22stash22 Posts: 5,370
    Forum Member
    But look at the McCanns' version that we are being asked to believe. That a child abductor entered the appartment, which he had no reason to expect to be unlocked, picked up a child, left without alerting the other 2 children, carried her away with no-one noticing (other than the Tanner 'sighting' which has changed dramatically over time) and got clean away.

    This same intruder left no forensic evidence whatsoever and has never been found or even identified, despite intensive international police effort. The version in your post is just as incredible (or credible, as no-one knows what really happened) as the McCanns' version of events.

    Well they were leaving them everynight so anybody watching could have seen they were not locking the door and leaving them for long intervals of time. The neighbour heard her crying for a long time the night before, if she was aware no adults were in the room it wouldnt have taken much for others to realise they were unattended in the room- possibly somebody who saw them eating out at the restaurant every night, a staff member, another guest, anybody. I dont understand why they didnt question the other guests and staff. As for the other children not waking up, I suppose it is possible, I went on a youth trip in my teens - in one room a girl woke up to find a man standing over her rubbing oil on her body...none of the other girls in the room woke during this time and she reckoned he had been there for some time.

    I agree about the forensic evidence though, its very strange how there is nothing at all to suggest an intruder coming in.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 160
    Forum Member
    Actually, I disagree because I can think of very few entirely motiveless crimes. I don't think your examples are appropriate. With Tabak it seems clear it was a sexual advance gone wrong followed by panic. Soham is similar, although with children. Moors - well there is a huge amount of documentation about the depraved desires of Brady and Hindley. Bulger is simply children with violent backgrounds and no boundaries.

    I won't comment on Tabak as I'm not 100% sure I'm right. However you do say it seems clear rather than being definitive.

    Regarding Soham we do not know what happened, we are making educated guesses, the bodies were too decomposed to even establish a cause of death let alone anything else. Huntley admits he was with them when they died but his version is accidental death, which as i say cannot be forensically disproved. Admittedly his version doesn't sound very plausible. But the fact is only he knows exactly what happened & he hasn't changed that story.

    Brady & Hindley changed their stories many times over the years as to who did what, where the bodies are etc. We know the basics, only they know the truth of what they did & why.

    With James Bulger again both boys accounts differ, we know the injuries inflicted, not who committed each one or if one boy was more the instigator than the other etc. They blamed each other. Neither gave a reason as to why they did it. Only they know. You yourself gave reasons as to why they might do it not an actual motive.

    So guilt can be established without being 100% certain of the exact motive.
  • jamie1992jamie1992 Posts: 354
    Forum Member
    God knows we've seen some ludicrous conspiracy theorists on DS
    The purported existence of your "God" is a ludicrous theory which can be debunked with concrete facts, backed up by credible sources. :p
    but this is different. On other CTs, people are queuing up to debunk the CTers evidence with concrete facts, backed up by credible sources.
    Oh, I beg to differ in most cases, but that's a topic for another thread.

    Back to the McCanns, and I think that - regardless of whether they are telling the truth or not - the most sinister aspect to the case is the amount of special treatment they have clearly received from the entire British establishment.
    I'm curious as to what the establishment's motivation is in all this - what's in it for them? What makes the McCanns so special in their eyes?

    There are purportedly 275,000 Britons disappearing annually, with at least 16,000 missing for more than a year. How often do we hear of these other cases in the media and in statements from authority figures?

    I find this special treatment of the McCanns and the disregard for other families in their (alleged) position to be disturbing.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 160
    Forum Member
    From what I've read the police said that forensic evidence showed the presence of Madeleine's body in the boot of the car about five weeks after she disappeared. How could that be right if they hired the car a couple of weeks after that night? Unless people believe that the McCanns were playing hide and seek with their daughter's body in full view of the world's media. Also, not long after, the head of the police cautioned that the tests had not been conclusive and forensic science experts pointed to the dangers of contamination. Now, if all that is dodgy then what else is too?

    Sources for the claims at the end ?

    The question is exactly how did the scent get on any of the items it was found on. You're suggesting the scent of a corpse was placed in 8 places accidentally or by ineptitude ? By who ? Who was in contact with a corpse & the McCanns stuff ? Who would have had that access ?
  • queeniequeenie Posts: 401
    Forum Member
    No, because as doctors they would have been able to handle it.
    Handle what? The only relevance of the McCanns being doctors is that it would have given them an even more potent rationale for concealing fatal neglect. Careers instantly finished.
    But - the big point here is they say a fatal accident whilst left alone. As the total time she was alone was less than 2 hrs, how did they get away with the body and hide it so well that nobody in the whole world can find it? Whilst sitting at a restaurant table with friends for most of the time period. Ludicrous.
    Two hours is an eternity compared to the tiny handful of minutes allowed in the McCanns' timeline for an abductor to gain entrance, snatch Madeleine and spirit her out of the apartment, taking time to remove every forensic trace of his presence, and even to open the bedroom window as "a red herring", as the McCanns now claim he did.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,510
    Forum Member
    That is a tad disingenous although I agree with you. The main tone of the threads is hardly sympathetic to the McCanns

    They have my sympathy, but to say they are not responsible for her disappearance is wrong, the only reason Madeleine is miing is cause of their neglect
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 160
    Forum Member
    Everything the Portugese police say is dodgy. And they have a motive - covering up their own incompetence. Yeah, perhaps all the time the McCanns were driving around the resort with their daughter's body in the boot of the car (presumably in the dry ice that they just happened to have handy_

    Please check the link I sent regarding what the Portuguese Police investigation involved. There are over 4500 pages, & almost double that including the appendices all available for anyone & everyone to go through. Once you have checked it all maybe you can tell us what they missed & what areas they were incompetent in.
  • penelopesimpsonpenelopesimpson Posts: 14,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    queenie wrote: »
    Handle what? The only relevance of the McCanns being doctors is that it would have given them an even more potent rationale for concealing fatal neglect. Careers instantly finished.


    Two hours is an eternity compared to the tiny handful of minutes allowed in the McCanns' timeline for an abductor to gain entrance, snatch Madeleine and spirit her out of the apartment, taking time to remove every forensic trace of his presence, and even to open the bedroom window as "a red herring", as the McCanns now claim he did.

    You seriously believe that time is enough to dispose of a dead body where nobody will ever find it and attend a restaurant dinner at the same time? The work of an intruder could be less than two mins.
This discussion has been closed.