See, I think thats my problem, I'm reading that and responding here.
Madeleine McCann
- Thread starter Fergies Gum
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
See, I think thats my problem, I'm reading that and responding here.
How would you know whether or not I looked up the foundation's accounts? We've already established that you hadn't read my post properly as you asserted I'd made no reference to their celebrity status, whilst it's clear that I had.
Yes, of course cider, as I said, whatever you're having yourself.
Oh right. So now we have people moaning about other's talking about what they think with no facts, whilst we can't talk about the only fact we know?
Superiority and gloating have also been mentioned.
Some of you really need to learn that this is a message board and we can debate what we like. And actually, it turned past what they as parents did onto what some posters here would do which I found interesting. But yeah, let's stop talking about that eh, let's shut up and never discuss a thing again
Superiority and gloating have also been mentioned.
Some of you really need to learn that this is a message board and we can debate what we like. And actually, it turned past what they as parents did onto what some posters here would do which I found interesting. But yeah, let's stop talking about that eh, let's shut up and never discuss a thing again
I didn't say it did, and I'm not arguing that it isn't neglect...As you went on to say later on, it's important to use the facts in this case rather than just putting in random times and assuming that was the case.
I find it really odd the guy who Jane Tanner saw that night carrying a child, has only come forward now years later and not right after she went missing.
Yep. I don't give a feck what they do for a living or what social class they are. It's basic common sense and instinct, if you take your kids on holiday you don't leave them alone in a room whilst you feck off to dinner.
The amount of people who think it's merely a 'risk' or a footnote' is very surprising. As I've said before I'd wager none have kids and have been in that situation. I have numerous times with large groups, not a single person would ever suggest that.
Makes a huge difference imo. I remember my (at the time childless) sister commenting on how other people raise their kids and whatnot. Once she had her own she was remarkably changed. A lot less judgemental and a hell of a lot more understanding.
It's a difficult job and some kids would drive you to distraction - but you're still supposed to mind them and most people do their best and are not neglectful. But the McCann's clearly were.
reading the mccann files and reading stuff like the Smith family sighting, and the 48 unanswered questions etc - I have to be honest and say I really doubt the parents version of the events...
I've said none of those things, why do people insist on arguing like this? One minute you think it's moral superiority, the next it's because they are doctors. Both are not true at all, you just made that up.
It's the same with telling us to stop talking about this at all, about it being a footnote. One minute you are telling someone to not get their opinions out of the mirror, the next we can't even talk about the one fact we know!
I agree - reading things like this:
http://www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm
I know that any facts can be twisted etc, but things like the dogs etc seem to me to be firm evidence.
I can't find much evidence that supports their version of events - outside of their own testimony.
When the Portugese police wanted to question the Mcanns didn't the UK government intervene to prevent it?
OK this is from the Mail, but thought it might be interesting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uestions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uestions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html
I really do find it amazing the parents haven't been under more scrutiny and questioning. Taking the fifth on that amount of questions does raise suspicions.
What was the story with the blood and the scent of death?
That sounds damning, but then again that is what the paper wants me to think (at the time that was printed)
Maybe...
*She didn't answer the questions because she feared being framed by the police, or...
*She hadn't the time to get her story straight, or...
*Her husband instructed her not to answer.
*She didn't answer the questions because she feared being framed by the police, or...
*She hadn't the time to get her story straight, or...
*Her husband instructed her not to answer.
*Or didn't know the answer
*Wasn't asked the questions in the first place.
*Wasn't asked the questions in the first place.
*Eboue
I would go with this, it is the Mail after all.
I only posted it to add to the debate, if it is proved to be true it is very damning.
They dont say where they go their info from.
I didn't even read the article. That's just how sceptical I am over anything printed in the media.
A specialist sniffer dog trained to detect the scent of human corpses was led around the McCann's apartment where it positively identified the scent of death, giving a strong indication that rather than being abducted alive the child died in the apartment. The dog in particular identified they child's favourite teddy 'Cuddle Cat' as a strong source of the scent of death. Kate McCann had previously, thoroughly and inexplicably washed the toy days after the child's disappearance, but the dog was nevertheless trained to detect the scent of human death in an object or garment after multiple washes.
I dont buy papers any more and have never bought the Mail.
Any other respectable paper and I would of been more inclined to take it more seriously.
That doesn't half seem suspicious (IMO). You'd think that most mothers would want the smell of their missing child to be on objects like that, not wash it away. Can't help wondering if there was something incriminating on the toy (vomit, for example).
either that or it was dirty and she threw it in the wash.
I still can't believe that, after finding her daughter missing and immediately assuming she had been abducted, the first thing she did was run down to her friends and tell them.
The first thing I would have done would have been to check on my other kids. Am stunned she didn't do this first.
As for not answering questions, such as "what did you see when you went into the apartment?"...beggers belief.
If it's true of course.
But just say she was asked those questions, why would you not answer them? I get the fear of a stitch up could be a possibility, but surely you'd put the missing girl before yourself and be eager to help.
But just say she was asked those questions, why would you not answer them? I get the fear of a stitch up could be a possibility, but surely you'd put the missing girl before yourself and be eager to help.
The authorities have no reason to "stitch up" the parents. It's on Portuguese interest to solve this case so they don't have story over them. I can understand her being upset but there are questions that would lead to help further investigations that she refuses to answer.
It'd about public image with them, always was IMO. I stand by what I always thought. They accidently killed her, or Maddie had an accident in the apartment, the parents went out to keep up appearances and then reported her missing.
It'd about public image with them, always was IMO. I stand by what I always thought. They accidently killed her, or Maddie had an accident in the apartment, the parents went out to keep up appearances and then reported her missing.
What's a bit baffling is why she came down shouting that Madeleine has been kidnapped when there was little evidence to suggest that right after she went into the room and it could have well been the kid herself who decided to take a little walk and perhaps find her parents because she felt uncomfortable in the room?
It still doesn't make sense for the parents to inform the media and turn it into a global affair. The more people are involved, the bigger the chance of the actual truth being discovered is. Then again if it's something they'd planned in advance then they'd be the first ones to cover up their steps and with all the mistakes from the police team right after arriving at the scene it wouldn't have been particularly difficult for them to do their work in the background even after the search has begun. They'd have had very little time though.
It still doesn't make sense for the parents to inform the media and turn it into a global affair. The more people are involved, the bigger the chance of the actual truth being discovered is. Then again if it's something they'd planned in advance then they'd be the first ones to cover up their steps and with all the mistakes from the police team right after arriving at the scene it wouldn't have been particularly difficult for them to do their work in the background even after the search has begun. They'd have had very little time though.
I accept that there are unanswered questions on this case, but almost invariably the police will need to find some kind of motive in this case.
This is, in my opinion, the reason for which the parents have not really been considered serious suspects. What did they possibly stand to gain? Neither of them had ever committed a crime before, they were respected in their community and both basically don't fit the profile of the kind of person who would commit this sort of crime.
I know the fact they are doctors from a middle-class background with plenty of money doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime. I know the fact they have campaigned for years in order that Madeleine might be found doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime either. It's incredibly unlikely though.
This is, in my opinion, the reason for which the parents have not really been considered serious suspects. What did they possibly stand to gain? Neither of them had ever committed a crime before, they were respected in their community and both basically don't fit the profile of the kind of person who would commit this sort of crime.
I know the fact they are doctors from a middle-class background with plenty of money doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime. I know the fact they have campaigned for years in order that Madeleine might be found doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime either. It's incredibly unlikely though.
Of course there's still an outside chance that she got hurt in the apartment but they weren't involved in any capacity but it's a long shot, anyone who'd likely come there and do anything to the kid would like to take it alive as it'd have likely been for the profit. It doesn't make sense to storm in, murder the kid and take the body with you, it'd be an utterly weird thing to do.
Can someone enlighten me on the extent of McCanns' contribution towards turning this case into such a popular one? Apparently they were the ones who hired detectives with the dogs in the first place.
Solving the case is reason enough for the authorities to decide who they think is responsible and then tailor the evidence to suit their version of events. I think you even answer your own question in the second sentence. So yeah, the local police have plenty of incentive to solve it. And given their situation, being in a foreign country like, I don't blame the McCanns for not being 100% cooperative.
Obviously you can pretty much rule out any possibility of them hurting their daughter deliberately in order to benefit from it in any way. If anything happened to her which had anything to do with them, it would have had to be an accident IMO. It's not really unthinkable although you can't just jump into conclusions just because they didn't answer some questions or because the dogs barked in the room. It can point towards them and raise suspicion but ultimately it doesn't provide you with enough evidence.
alastair said:
They faced the ruination of their lives & livelihoods, Al, because of an accident to which they were, nevertheless, somewhat culpable. A cover story, effective for years, would be needed.
*The above assumes guilt, of course, but I'm only proffering it in reply to Al's post.
She was three years old. You'd probably assume she had been taken before she exited the room and went for a walk by herself. I don't think that's an unnatural response to be honest. Also the window was open and the shutters pushed right up according to the mum.
I just think the weight of probability is surely with an external kidnap. I agree with you, it has to be an accident if they did cause it.
If movies and TV have taught us anything it's that mothers leave everything belonging to a missing child exactly as it was until they return.
I'd agree with this. Regardless of their actions before hand this has undoubtedly ruined and completely taken over their lives. No way in the world was this some kind of pre planned event.
That's fair enough as a theory.
The issue I would take with it is that I find their attempts to keep the story in the public eye very genuine and heartfelt. The police are normally very happy for relatives to do press conferences because they analyse them for signs of suspicion.
If this is a cover-up from the parents, it's a hugely successful one. It requires immense consistency and a talent for deception that I scarcely believe possible.
I don't buy that the Portugese authorities would take the easy way out and blame the parents. Essentially they are concerned with their image as a tourist destination. "Stitching up" tourists for crimes they cannot solve does not help them achieve the tag of desirable tourist destination.
A lot of the questions they asked were based on evidence that British authorities found, and none were leading or an obvious ploy to accuse the parents as the culprits.
The Mcanns have used the media very well throughout this. I recall the time it was first suggested they were suspects the media in Britain went mad for the most part. It seems to be a more recent thing that people are beginning to question their involvement more.