Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Options
1…3334363839…135

Comments

  • Options
    #1052
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Kess73 wrote: »
    The police thinking there was no abduction is not the same as solid evidence.


    Hence there being doubt as to what actually happened.

    Even with the total lack of proof of an intruder that abducted the child, it would still require a confession by the McCanns to prove that they, or maybe somebody they knew, had something to do with it.

    This is the strange thing people forget, there is very little evidence to suggest a kidnapping. I could see that maybe if it was a quiet country area, there have been abductions in Ireland like that and nobody ever witnessed anything. But a built up and busy holiday resort?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1053
    General Zod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

    I don't know if they had anything to do with it or not. But just look at the man's smile in this vid. Creepy, no sign of a smile in the eyes at all. Just an observation. Doesn't mean he's guilty of anything, but a profiler might interpret many things from his demeanour and language.

    But what do I know? Only my gut instinct I'm afraid.

    Stop believeing Lie to Me and CSI. He doesn't smile, it's a sign of exasperation, that he felt (as he says after) that Paxman was playing Devils advocate.


  • Options
    #1054
    General Zod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    actually, listening to the people who think they are guilty has made me start to think they're innocent.


  • Options
    #1055
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    danmoz wrote: »
    Really? I already posted it in the last few pages, but for your benefit

    http://www.illustre.ch/les_parents_de_maddie_font_un_show_pour_1843_.html

    Really, a quote from Amaral himself? :rolleyes:
    That's hardly hard proof of his claim is it?!
    Also your link doesn't work.
    danmoz wrote: »
    Because it's about what you can prove and, unfortunately, in the real world criminals often get away with their crimes.

    Another Amaral quote for Mcgonigol;

    [/B]

    What thesis? Where is it?
    danmoz wrote: »
    Really? What were they? Links?

    Here's 50. Try google sometime. It's pretty good.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7353737/Madeleine-McCann-more-than-50-new-leads.html

    Why do you continue to quote Amaral. He's actually a convicted liar? Or do you refuse to admit that??
    K-9 wrote: »
    The questions still are there, the dogs, the McCann's changing there story, the child neglect, the door being unlocked.

    Yes there still are questions. Nothing credible enough to act on however. A lot of theories.
    danmoz wrote: »
    No it isn't. Have you ever been in a police interview? If your story is straight and you didn't do something, it's pretty damned hard to incriminate yourself. If you're guilty however, it's best to just keep quiet.



    Because they could not ask those questions UNLESS the Mccanns were made suspects

    you're really showing your ignorance here.

    Really? I posted a youtube video a while back. You should take a look.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    It's actually quite interesting. I came across it several years ago and like you I would have originally been of the view that the truth will set you free. Unfortunately I don't believe that to be the case.

    I don't admit to knowing everything. I don't. I do try to educate myself however and examine things in a rational manner and don't let opinions and spin cloud my judgement.

    However you're seriously suggesting they couldn't have asked the McCanns questions which they could answer voluntarily? Really? How do they question any witnesses then? Arrest them all? By making them suspects they put the McCanns in a position where they had to act to protect themselves.


  • Options
    #1056
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Do you not think searching for a missing child and her abductors/killers is a good use of resources?

    I haven't made up any arguments, I just answered a question. It's you who seems to be the argumentative type.

    Of course it's a good use of resources. However it can't go on indefinitely however. You should take it up with the Portuguese authorities.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1057
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    mconigol wrote: »
    Of course it's a good use of resources. However it can't go on indefinitely however. You should take it up with the Portuguese authorities.

    Why, I thought it was the Portuguese who said they would reopen the investigation if the McCann's asked? So there's obviously no issue with resources, so why have they not asked?


  • Options
    #1058
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Why, I thought it was the Portuguese who said they would reopen the investigation if the McCann's asked? So there's obviously no issue with resources, so why have they not asked?

    I'll just leave this here:
    http://www.dn.pt/especiais/interior.aspx?content_id=1734916&especial=Caso%20Maddie&seccao=SOCIEDADE


    (posted this previously)


  • Options
    #1059
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    Mconigol wrote:
    Really, a quote from Amaral himself? rolleyes.gif
    That's hardly hard proof of his claim is it?!
    Also your link doesn't work.

    It's an interview with Amaral, are you saying he's making it up?
    Mcongiol wrote:
    Why do you continue to quote Amaral. He's actually a convicted liar? Or do you refuse to admit that??

    But it's not Amaral alone, is it, it's the conclusion of the investigation by ALL involved. Using your own logic, the Mccanns are proven bad parents, why does that make them any more credible?

    So how about Amarals boss then?
    Many articles on the internet wrote:
    A REPORT into the Portugal disappearance of British child Madeleine McCann, signed by a police chief, said she died in her family's holiday apartment, a court has heard today.

    The lawyer in charge of the original inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance, Jose Magalhaes e Menezes, said the report was signed by Tavares de Almeida, who was chief inspector of police at the time Madeleine vanished.

    or this one
    Almeida wrote:
    Officers leading the investigation into the three-year-old's disappearance believed she died in a 'tragic accident' and that her parents hid her body, a senior detective admitted yesterday.

    and another
    wrote:
    Mr Almeida said the decision was taken after he filed a damning report to the Portuguese prosecutor in September 2007, four months after Madeleine's disappearance.


    'The conclusion arrived at in the report was that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment and that the McCanns simulated the abduction,' he said.

    Maybe you'll attempt to discredit him next?
    mconigol wrote:
    Really? I posted a youtube video a while back. You should take a look

    I knew what that video would be before even clicking on it. If you ever find yourself in trouble with the law, I don't recommend you follow the advice in that video.


  • Options
    #1060
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    One can presume that the little girl fell behind that piece of furniture, maybe due to tranquilisers that her parents gave her regularly, as they later admitted.
    One might, for example, perfectly imagine that Maddie's body was concealed in a freezer between the 3rd and the 27th of May

    People are seriously more inclined to believe a convicted liar whose conclusions include the words 'presume', 'maybe', might' and 'imagine' to sum up the evidence they believe indicates the McCanns guilt.

    I find it seriously difficult to comprehend how the McCanns could hide their daughter's body in a freezer (what freezer??) on the night she died, then continue hiding her there for over 3 weeks, whilst being followed relentlessly by the media and police, before somehow disposing of it somewhere in a foreign country where it still hasn't been discovered to this day.

    If the police seriously believe this account, I can understand why the McCanns would want nothing to do with their investigation, tbh. It's quite an outlandish theory!


  • Options
    #1061
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    Kess73 wrote: »
    And the McCanns knew that from day one? They knew inside the first 36 hours that he was a bad egg and that getting family members to go to the media in the UK to badmouth the police was the way to go?

    The child was meant to have been discovered to have been missing at roughly 10pm by Kate McCann. She claimed that the child was abducted straight away. Yet the first record of a call being made to the police is at 23:50. Both the phone records of the hotel , whose phone made the call, and the records of the emergency services there confirm when the call was made.

    Even funnier is the fact that the British media were already running the story just as the police arrived.

    Why the hell would any parents whose child went missing and they feared that she was abducted not ring the police straight away, and why would the media in another country seem to be contacted before the police?

    Then maybe 36 hours later a family member in the UK, think it was Kate's mother was talking to the media criticising the police and repeating stuff said by the police to the McCanns in private.

    They made life difficult for the police from the very start, and seemed to run their own version of a smear campaign almost from the very start.


    What is also interesting is that they have hired five different Private Investigation firms. All five were then pretty much discredited by Team McCann as being bad value for money or had smears put against their characters when they turned up nothing different to the police and nothing in terms of any real evidence, despite many press conferences by the McCanns speaking of fresh evidence and leads that they had found.

    It would seem everyone that does not tell the McCanns what they want to hear gets painted as either being incompetant, corrupt, poor value for money, or out to get them for no reason.


    No but it taints everything he touches now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1062
    _feedback_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭_feedback_


    dark crystal wrote: »
    People are seriously more inclined to believe a convicted liar whose conclusions include the words 'presume', 'maybe', might' and 'imagine' to sum up the evidence they believe indicates the McCanns guilt.

    I find it seriously difficult to comprehend how the McCanns could hide their daughter's body in a freezer (what freezer??) on the night she died, then continue hiding her there for over 3 weeks, whilst being followed relentlessly by the media and police, before somehow disposing of it somewhere in a foreign country where it still hasn't been discovered to this day.

    If the police seriously believe this account, I can understand why the McCanns would want nothing to do with their investigation, tbh. It's quite an outlandish theory!

    The McCanns have also come up with the theory that she was abducted. Some might argue that is also outlandish.

    The words 'presume', 'maybe', might' and 'imagine' are used as theorys is all that they are.


  • Options
    #1063
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    danmoz wrote: »
    It's an interview with Amaral, are you saying he's making it up?

    I'm saying he's not credible since he's a convicted liar.
    danmoz wrote: »
    But it's not Amaral alone, is it, it's the conclusion of the investigation by ALL involved. Using your own logic, the Mccanns are proven bad parents, why does that make them any more credible?

    So how about Amarals boss then?



    or this one



    and another



    Maybe you'll attempt to discredit him next?

    I can't comment on quotes that could possible be taken out of context.

    I'm not attempting to discredit anyone. He IS discredited. He did that himself. Do you think I'm making it up?
    danmoz wrote: »
    I knew what that video would be before even clicking on it. If you ever find yourself in trouble with the law, I don't recommend you follow the advice in that video.

    Why? On what basis?

    Also I never said you should follow it. I said it illustrates instances where an innocent person could incriminate themselves. Does it not?
    It's 40 minutes long. How did you manage to watch it and them try tell me what it contains?


  • Options
    #1064
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    mconigol wrote: »
    I'm saying he's not credible since he's a convicted liar.



    I can't comment on quotes that could possible be taken out of context.

    I'm not attempting to discredit anyone. He IS discredited. He did that himself. Do you think I'm making it up?



    Why? On what basis?

    Also I never said you should follow it. I said it illustrates instances where an innocent person could incriminate themselves. Does it not?
    It's 40 minutes long. How did you manage to watch it and them try tell me what it contains?

    Are you a little.. slow on the uptake?

    The fact I said "I knew what that video would be before even clicking on it" should suggest to you I've seen it before, otherwise, how would I know what it was?

    Why don't I recommened following his advice? Because US law is nothing like UK law, is it? Do you have any real world, first hand experience of police interviews and court trials? In the UK, if you remain silent, a jury can infer that as guilt and convict you. there is no fifth amendment here.


  • Options
    #1065
    Paul.C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 245 ✭✭Paul.C


    if they were in the lower working class theyd be locked up. Lies :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1066
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    elviscostello wrote: »
    The McCanns have also come up with the theory that she was abducted. Some might argue that is also outlandish.

    The words 'presume', 'maybe', might' and 'imagine' are used as theorys is all that they are.

    Abductions are far more common than cases of parents murdering and attempting to cover up that child's death for years, though, so perhaps not as outlandish a theory.

    All anyone can hope is that whoever carried out her disappearance, the poor little mite will get justice eventually.


  • Options
    #1067
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    danmoz wrote: »
    Are you a little.. slow on the uptake?

    The fact I said "I knew what that video would be before even clicking on it" should suggest to you I've seen it before, otherwise, how would I know what it was?

    Why don't I recommened following his advice? Because US law is nothing like UK law, is it? Do you have any real world, first hand experience of police interviews and court trials? In the UK, if you remain silent, a jury can infer that as guilt and convict you. there is no fifth amendment here.

    Fair enough. I'm not psychic.

    As I said in the post you quoted. You claimed that telling the truth can not get you in trouble if you are innocent. I posted the video because it contains examples where that is simply not true. I never mentioned the 5th amendment. :rolleyes:

    I don't think it's me that slow on the uptake. Yet again you read more than what information is presented.

    I'm leaving it at that because it doesn't seem possible from here on to have a debate without falling to the level of insulting peoples intelligence. Good luck!


  • Options
    #1068
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    danmoz wrote: »
    Are you a little.. slow on the uptake?

    Why are you constantly taking childish digs at other people on here when they offer any alternative opinion from yours?

    It's highly irritating.


  • Options
    #1069
    ISDW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭ISDW


    elviscostello wrote: »
    How can you say in one sentence that they were so intelligent that they got advise on how to deal with the media, and then say that she didn't want something that the abductor had touched, so she washed it?

    Come on now.

    What intelligent person washes the possible key to the identity of the abductor away?

    On your last point, very few here (if any) claim to know what happened, but have put out possible scenarios for debate, just like you have also done above.

    An educated woman in emotional turmoil? Does irrational things.
    thebullkf wrote: »
    not attack, criticise . it shows a pattern of not minding their children properly



    as opposed to leaving them with no one? baby monitors are extremely cheap, even video ones. coupled with a Hotel employee as babysitter it would seem like a porudent,reasonable thing to do if you wanted to go for some time alone with your partner ( though it seems they spent all day with their paretners while kids where in the creche...)




    nobodys jumping on you.:confused:

    just incredulous is all




    so if you witnessedd adults leaving 3 kids alone in aprtment, even once.
    you wouldn't report it.. cos its "not illegal, and none of your business..."

    are you serious?



    10-12 year olds is different to 1-4 year olds. and 10-5pm is different to 10-5.30pm, and 8.30pm -11.00pm,.

    You are quoting me out of context as you know, I was replying to a post that said they were left at a creche during the day.
    thebullkf wrote: »
    how do you know for sure?... oh thats right...from links on this thread:rolleyes:

    Seems you read some 'facts' but not others.





    yes i have, never killed anyone. cause and effect, remember?

    Another wrong assumption made. No, it wasn't from this thread, I listen and watch the news:eek:
    thebullkf wrote: »
    so have i


    not necessarily- if what you said were true, no kids woulkd ever be taken from their parents.

    If a second child disappeared on holiday, would it be ok then?




    no they weren't, they were middle class doctors, who chose to leave their children unattended nightly, whilst on holiday.

    So who is an ordinary joe soap?:confused: If you're middle class, you're not ordinary? Maybe if you meant working class, thats what you should have said.
    thebullkf wrote: »
    i never said it was stupid.

    you're driving analogy is irrelevant.

    you know this.

    No, the driving analogy is not irrelevant. You know this. Nobody has answered it though have they? Nobody has said whether they behave irresponsibly around children, putting them in danger. Just like the McCanns did, leaving their children alone.
    thebullkf wrote: »
    thats twice you've mentioned ben needham, start your own thread about ben, is the simple answer, this is a thread about Madeline, not speeding cars or ben needham.

    Ben Needham is very relevant. He was a British child that disappeared on holiday, but most people don't know who he is. Maybe because his parents aren't 'media whores' to quote a poster who kept his name and photographs in the public eye. Maybe the McCanns feel its worth all of this just to try and get Madeleine back. Maybe they feel its worth writing this book, with everything that is apparently in it, because it gets people talking about the case again, and people are on the look out for their daughter again.

    I never said the Smiths weren't good people, trying to help, just that maybe they made a mistake in identifying the man, as Gerry McCann was sitting in a restaurant at the time.


  • Options
    #1070
    Madam
    Registered Users Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭Madam


    Paul.C wrote: »
    if they were in the lower working class theyd be locked up. Lies :rolleyes:

    Em, they both come from working class backgrounds:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1071
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    mconigol wrote: »
    Fair enough. I'm not psychic.

    As I said in the post you quoted. You claimed that telling the truth can not get you in trouble if you are innocent. I posted the video because it contains examples where that is simply not true. I never mentioned the 5th amendment. :rolleyes:

    I don't think it's me that slow on the uptake. Yet again you read more than what information is presented.

    I'm leaving it at that because it doesn't seem possible from here on to have a debate without falling to the level of insulting peoples intelligence. Good luck!

    Perhaps you should actually watch your own bloody link then before parting your legal wisdom on others? The opening titles are;

    "In praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself. Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer"

    Let's put it this way, had Robert Murat kept quiet, would you have believed him innocent?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1072
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    Madam wrote: »
    Em, they both come from working class backgrounds:rolleyes:

    A GP and a surgeon living in a half million pound house is 'working class'? Blimey, where do you live? Dubai?


  • Options
    #1073
    _feedback_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,269 ✭✭✭_feedback_


    ISDW wrote: »
    An educated woman in emotional turmoil? Does irrational things.

    Sorry but that's not really an answer.

    You said that she had the presence of mind to seek advise on how to deal with the media. But, she didn't have the presence of mind to think - wait, washing something that the "abductor" touched might not be a good idea.

    Surely Gerry would have said, hold on now, that could be good evidence there, dont touch it, nevermind wash it.

    It is ridiculous to say that she washed it because she wasn't thinking straight.


  • Options
    #1074
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Abductions are far more common than cases of parents murdering and attempting to cover up that child's death for years, though, so perhaps not as outlandish a theory.
    All anyone can hope is that whoever carried out her disappearance, the poor little mite will get justice eventually.


    Did you just pull that out of your arse?

    Murdered children have been murdered by relatives in most occurrences. According to Friedman et al.,[2] of murdered American children younger than five years old, 61% were murdered by their parents (30% murdered by mothers, and 31% by fathers); homicide was the fourth leading cause of death amongst American preschool-aged children, and the third leading cause of death amongst American children five to fourteen years old.

    A number of murderers of children are pedophiles who commit lust murder or kill to cover up their other crimes. These latter cases are more notorious, although killings by family members are more common. Family members can also be pedophiles.

    In the UK the number of child homicides has averaged 79 a year for the last 28 years. The Home Office also provides unpublished figures on the relationship between the child victims of homicide in any one year and the principal suspect. Latest figures for 2000/01 show that parents were the principal suspect in 78 per cent of child homicides.[

    Still, let's not let facts get in the way of your bull****

    ETA: 500 children a year abducted in the UK. Good luck trying to find the figures on how many are murdered.


  • Options
    #1075
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    mconigol wrote: »
    No but it taints everything he touches now.


    And by the same standards, the constant changing of times, eye witness reports, and the report from the British police taint anything the McCanns say.

    A hell of a lot of what was said by the McCanns and their family/friends right from the start taints their versions of what happened as well.

    They outright blamed the wrong man and made it public that they were sure Murat did it before the police had even finished their questioning of Murat.

    Their star witnesses changed their stories a number of times. With the changes being drastic.

    Both of the McCanns and their friends wiped their phone call records and texts when asked to give their mobile phones to the police.

    Both McCanns went on, in press conferences, about how they would take lie detector tests, but when the police went to take them up on that offer they refused and would not even agree to British police doing it.

    The media were rang before the police were rang on the night the child went missing. That for me is mindboggling. Why the hell would you be ringing the british media before the local police if you were in a foreign country and you thought your child was abducted?

    The police and hotel records show exactly when the call to the police was made and it was at 23:50, which is a hell of a long time after 22:00 when Kate was saying she knew the child was abducted.

    Kate has said that the police were called within ten minutes of her finding that the child was gone, which would have been 22:10. But all phone records show this to not be the case and they could not produce any proof of this mystery call they claimed to have made.

    The police arrived ten minutes after they were called, something both the police and McCanns agree on. At that time the story was already in the British media as an abduction case.

    So if the Police are tainted by having that guy as the head guy for a while, then the McCanns or their family members are very tainted by their actions by having the story in the media as an abduction before the investigation had even begun.

    Surely the first thing should have been to search for the child in case she had woken up and wondered off? But nope, Kate went straight into the abduction theory and said "They have taken her".

    Maybe, since a few people have tried the whole "if you are not a parent you would not understand" line, somebody who is a parent could explain to me how if one of their own children was not in their bedroom whilst on holiday how their first reaction would be to start screaming in the corridor that the child was abducted with no doubt over that, and then to ring the media in another country before you rang the police.

    I just don't get how the reaction of any parent would not be to get a search going straight away for the child as the most likely option at that point had to be the one of the child wandering off. But Kate went straight to screaming about it being an abduction before she had even ran back to the table where Gerry and the others were.


  • Options
    #1076
    ISDW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭ISDW


    elviscostello wrote: »
    Sorry but that's not really an answer.

    You said that she had the presence of mind to seek advise on how to deal with the media. But, she didn't have the presence of mind to think - wait, washing something that the "abductor" touched might not be a good idea.

    Surely Gerry would have said, hold on now, that could be good evidence there, dont touch it, nevermind wash it.

    It is ridiculous to say that she washed it because she wasn't thinking straight.

    It is an answer, obviously not the one that you want to hear, but yep, it is an answer.

    Was Gerry in the room when she washed it? Do you know that?

    When was it washed? When were the pr people hired? I don't know the answers to those questions, I'm not being facetious, was it the same time?


  • Options
    #1077
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Abductions are far more common than cases of parents murdering and attempting to cover up that child's death for years, though, so perhaps not as outlandish a theory.

    All anyone can hope is that whoever carried out her disappearance, the poor little mite will get justice eventually.




    Nope, the majority of child murder cases that get proven turn out to have either one or both parents as the guilty party/parties, with a relative/friend of the family being high on the list of killers as well.


    Would agree 100% with your last sentence though


  • Options
    #1078
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    ISDW wrote: »
    It is an answer, obviously not the one that you want to hear, but yep, it is an answer.

    Was Gerry in the room when she washed it? Do you know that?

    When was it washed? When were the pr people hired? I don't know the answers to those questions, I'm not being facetious, was it the same time?

    I'm going to leave one more comment.

    Why wasn't the crime scene sealed off?


  • Options
    #1079
    ISDW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭ISDW


    Whatever we all think, I actually hope that the scenario that a poster or two put up is the one that actually happened, she fell, banged her head and died and the parents covered it up. Any alternative to that at all, and the poor child must have gone/be going through hell.

    I would love the proponents of that theory to be proved right, as it would mean that she didn't suffer.


  • Options
    #1080
    danmoz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 58 ✭✭danmoz


    mconigol wrote: »
    I'm going to leave one more comment.

    Why wasn't the crime scene sealed off?

    It was, was it not? After they phoned the police of course, which was anywhere between nearly 1-2hrs after Kate Mccann discovered her missing. Amaral says in his book that when the police arrived the place was like a circus and numerous people had been in and out and contaminated the scene.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1081
    Kess73
    Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    mconigol wrote: »
    I'm going to leave one more comment.

    Why wasn't the crime scene sealed off?


    The published police reports show that an investigation unit began work within 30 minutes of the call and that when the police arrived the room in question was full of people.

    All Portugese and Spanish airports were informed within that 30 minutes as were police in towns along the Spain/Portugal border.

    The police forces in both Spain and Portugal have confirmed this in the reports and the airports have also confirmed that this happened.

    Now the McCanns or rather the mother of Kate was talking to Sky within a day to a day and a half of the child going missing claiming the police did not seal off airports and what not, but unless the Spanish police are also lying along with each airport lying about getting the report and the times they got it, it would seem to be just anopther part of the McCann smear campaign against the police which started pretty much straight away.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement