Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

dark crystal

elviscostello wrote: »

That's like saying, sorry Mr Ice cream man, I didn't want an ice cream cone, I actually wanted a loaf of bread.

You ask the police to investigate and they come to conclusions.

I don't think it's a matter of not trusting them, it's more a matter of them not liking their conclusions.

But imagine just for a second that they're innocent....as well they may be.

The police they put all their trust in, decide they are the main suspects. This puts them off the scent of the real culprit and slows down the entire investigation.

Would you want them to re-investigate with no extra evidence to go on?

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that they don't trust the Portugese police in relation to this crime, though.

The former chief detective in the case has already written a book outlining his suspicions about the couple, so it would be fair to assume that they feel any subsequent investigation may be biased in that direction.

If they are innocent of any wrongdoing, I could see where the mistrust might arise.

The McCanns and their family back in the UK started a smear campaign against the police long before that book was written.

There was a family member on Sky News slagging off the police within a few days, and the same was being done to any newspaper that would listen.


The McCanns went on the offensive against the police pretty much from the satart and hardly helped things by repeating in public what people were being looked at by the police and giving their own opinions on suspects before the police released information to the press.

Kate's comments about how she knew Murat was guilty is a prime example of them using the media and hindering what the police were trying to do. That man's life was ruined thanks to her lies about him. She had no proof that he did anything but she had no problem letting it be known that he was guilty in her eyes.

Strange how that was acceptable to her, but when others suspected her of knowing something it was a great offence and all wrong to say things like that.

It is also strange that the British Police involved came to the same conclusion as the Portugese police in that they put in their final reports that they did not think an abduction took place if it was simply a case of the Portugese police being influenced by a book that had not been written or released.


If the McCanns have reason to mistrust the police based on a book released quite some time after the event, then it stands to reason the police have reason to mistrust the McCanns from the very start as they proved to be unhelpful with regards to questioning, very keen to blab anything to the media directly or indirectly through family members back in the UK, and had witnesses who were unable to stick to one story.

MagicMarker

dark crystal wrote: »

But imagine just for a second that they're innocent....as well they may be.

The police they put all their trust in, decide they are the main suspects. This puts them off the scent of the real culprit and slows down the entire investigation.

Would you want them to re-investigate with no extra evidence to go on?

Errr, yes!!! How are they supposed to attain any extra evidence when the investigation is closed?

If the parents of a missing child do NOT want an investigate into her disappearance reopened, increasing the manpower behind looking for their lost daughter then there's something seriously wrong with them.

Next stupid question...

mconigol

Kess73 wrote: »

The McCanns and their family back in the UK started a smear campaign against the police long before that book was written.

There was a family member on Sky News slagging off the police within a few days, and the same was being done to any newspaper that would listen.


The McCanns went on the offensive against the police pretty much from the satart and hardly helped things by repeating in public what people were being looked at by the police and giving their own opinions on suspects before the police released information to the press.

Kate's comments about how she knew Murat was guilty is a prime example of them using the media and hindering what the police were trying to do. That man's life was ruined thanks to her lies about him. She had no proof that he did anything but she had no problem letting it be known that he was guilty in her eyes.

Strange how that was acceptable to her, but when others suspected her of knowing something it was a great offence and all wrong to say things like that.

It is also strange that the British Police involved came to the same conclusion as the Portugese police in that they put in their final reports that they did not think an abduction took place if it was simply a case of the Portugese police being influenced by a book that had not been written or released.


If the McCanns have reason to mistrust the police based on a book released quite some time after the event, then it stands to reason the police have reason to mistrust the McCanns from the very start as they proved to be unhelpful with regards to questioning, very keen to blab anything to the media directly or indirectly through family members back in the UK, and had witnesses who were unable to stick to one story.

Your forgetting that the author of the book that had not been written then was the main inspector in charge of the case. A convicted liar.

mconigol

MagicMarker wrote: »

Errr, yes!!! How are they supposed to attain any extra evidence when the investigation is closed?

If the parents of a missing child do NOT want an investigate into her disappearance reopened, increasing the manpower behind looking for their lost daughter then there's something seriously wrong with them.

Next stupid question...

Oh I don't know...say for example a new witness comes forward. Say for example a CCTV camera picks up a picture of Madeline somewhere. Say for example some childrens clothes are found washed up on a beach somewhere.

Lot's of places where extra evidence that might warrant reopening a closed case might come from. Closed cases are reopened every week.

maebee

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html#ixzz1M1SNkkzi

Kate added: "There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm. There is also no evidence that she is not out there alive. In four years there never has been."

They have both said this in numerous youtube videos.

dark crystal

I guess this is where personal opinion comes into it.

If you suspect they may be guilty, you would side with the Portugese Police and call for the McCanns to re-open the investigation over there.

If you suspect they may be innocent, you would side with the McCanns and completely understand why they wouldn't trust that police force to investigate the case any further.


Sadly, I don't suspect any of us will ever truly know for sure what happened that night until whatever time Madeleine is found or the culprit confesses.

mconigol

maebee wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html#ixzz1M1SNkkzi





They have both said this in numerous youtube videos.

So what? She's right.

That doesn't mean she still wouldn't have terrible thoughts.

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3573678/I-fear-this-outfit-may-have-led-to-Madeleine-kidnap.html#ixzz1M1SNkkzi





They have both said this in numerous youtube videos.

She is correct - There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm. There is also no evidence that she is not out there alive.

However, This doesn't stop a parent fearing the worst case scenario that their child has come to harm in the most awful way imaginable.

K-9

Well they are correct there is no evidence they are alive, still, I'm sure the thought that she isn't has crossed their mind, naturally enough.

On the police officer, he obviously feels wronged by the case. Whatever about the other cases mentioned it sounds like he was under intense pressure and snapped! Still doesn't mean that what he says should be discounted.

The McCann's have spent a lot of money from the fund on legal fees to stop the publication of the book and a case against a newspaper IIRC, tbh, it's a futile exercise as the doubts will always be there.

danmoz

dark crystal wrote: »

I think it's pretty clear that they don't trust the Portugese police in relation to this crime, though.

The former chief detective in the case has already written a book outlining his suspicions about the couple, so it would be fair to assume that they feel any subsequent investigation may be biased in that direction.

If they are innocent of any wrongdoing, I could see where the mistrust might arise.

Lol, there you go being disingenuous again. They're not 'his' findings, are they? As he has stated, those are the findings of "over a hundred British and Portugese police officers and experts" after a fourteen month investigation. This isn't some 'lone gunman' who has it in for them, it's the conclusion of all involved.

Still, you continue claiming to be 'open minded' whilst showing clear bias in favour of the Mccanns.

mconigol

dark crystal wrote: »

She is correct - There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm. There is also no evidence that she is not out there alive.

However, This doesn't stop a parent fearing the worst case scenario that their child has come to harm in the most awful way imaginable.

I find it amazing that so many people read so much into every sentence she utters yet at the same time complaining that she won't answer all their questions and claiming that she could clear her own name by doing do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

She's been put in a no-win situation. Answer the questions and you get the conspiracy theorists out in full force dissecting every word, inferring all sorts and basically making up their own story. Don't answer the questions and she's obviously admitting guilt by doing so. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

danmoz

dark crystal wrote: »

But imagine just for a second that they're innocent....as well they may be.

The police they put all their trust in, decide they are the main suspects. This puts them off the scent of the real culprit and slows down the entire investigation.

Would you want them to re-investigate with no extra evidence to go on?

Puts them 'off the scent'? There NEVER was a scent. That's the crux of the matter!!

In these cases, those closest to the victim are always, always under suscpicion first. Sorry, that's just fact. If they're innocent, they really should have nothing to worry about. It helps no one but themselves to refuse to co-operate with the police.

MagicMarker

mconigol wrote: »

Oh I don't know...say for example a new witness comes forward. Say for example a CCTV camera picks up a picture of Madeline somewhere. Say for example some childrens clothes are found washed up on a beach somewhere.

Lot's of places where extra evidence that might warrant reopening a closed case might come from. Closed cases are reopened every week.

Ah grand, let's all sit back and wait so. Sure what's the point in having police actively search for evidence when the evidence will just come to us.

mconigol

danmoz wrote: »

Lol, there you go being disingenuous again. They're not 'his' findings, are they? As he has stated, those are the findings of "over a hundred British and Portugese police officers and experts" after a fourteen month investigation. This isn't some 'lone gunman' who has it in for them, it's the conclusion of all involved.

Still, you continue claiming to be 'open minded' whilst showing clear bias in favour of the Mccanns.

Can you please provide a link for your quoted remark?

Also your last line: "This isn't some 'lone gunman' who has it in for them, it's the conclusion of all involved."

Who are are the all involved that agree that the inspector hasn't got it in for them?

K-9 wrote: »

Well they are correct there is no evidence they are alive, still, I'm sure the thought that she isn't has crossed their mind, naturally enough.

On the police officer, he obviously feels wronged by the case. Whatever about the other cases mentioned it sounds like he was under intense pressure and snapped! Still doesn't mean that what he says should be discounted.

The McCann's have spent a lot of money from the fund on legal fees to stop the publication of the book and a case against a newspaper IIRC, tbh, it's a futile exercise as the doubts will always be there.

Actually he has recently been convicted and sentenced to 18months (suspended) for lying (submitting a false testimony) in another case. So what he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. He is not credible imo for which he only has himself to blame.

dark crystal

MagicMarker wrote: »

Errr, yes!!! How are they supposed to attain any extra evidence when the investigation is closed?

If the parents of a missing child do NOT want an investigate into her disappearance reopened, increasing the manpower behind looking for their lost daughter then there's something seriously wrong with them.

Next stupid question...

I'll ask you politely to stop resorting to calling my opinions or questions stupid please. My opinions may differ to yours, that does not make any of my contributions on this thread any more or less stupid than anyone elses.

maebee

dark crystal wrote: »

She is correct - There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm. There is also no evidence that she is not out there alive.

However, This doesn't stop a parent fearing the worst case scenario that their child has come to harm in the most awful way imaginable.

Indeed. I just find it very strange that any mother would mention her daughter's genitals in a book. The twins will be able to read this one day. I just don't think she should have transferred these thoughts to paper, along with the fact that she couldn't make love to her husband. We do not need to hear this stuff.

danmoz

mconigol wrote: »

Can you please provide a link for your quoted remark?

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

Amaral Interview wrote:

What are the elements that allow you to accuse, with such conviction, Maddie's parents of lying to the whole planet?

There are several of them. For a start, just like their friends, their witness statements and their depositions reveal a major level of imprecision, of incoherence and contradiction. Then there's the smell of a cadaver that has been confirmed by the detection dogs and the existence of blood traces behind the sofa in the apartment, which was confirmed by preliminary analyses. 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. The same for the finding of odours and traces of blood in the vehicle that was rented by the McCanns, three weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. It was the only vehicle among eleven that retained the dogs' attention. There is equally the witness statement of an Irish couple that states they saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the evening of the events. Finally, there's Kate McCann's fingerprint on the window of Madeleine's bedroom, which clearly indicates that she opened that window, undoubtedly to make believe in the abduction theory, while stating that the window was already open when she arrived on the spot at 10 p.m., the time at which she noticed Madeleine's disappearance and raised the alarm.

That's your truth, which is not supported by any evidence...

That's not my truth, those are the conclusions of an investigation that lasted for fourteen months, carried out by over one hundred policemen and experts. Concerning the facts, the results indicate that the analysed samples coincided with Madeleine's DNA profile in 75%.

Why are all those indications not enough evidence?

Because those results needed to be confirmed and it would have been necessary to carry out other investigations based on this data. Undoubtedly the last ones. One might, for example, perfectly imagine that Maddie's body was concealed in a freezer between the 3rd and the 27th of May. All of this should have been minutely checked. Well, that was the moment when the will to archive the process emerged and I was removed. That the case was actually smothered.

colly10

If neither the Portuguese or British police think there was no abduction then why are these 2 still free? Is the case still ongoing?

mconigol

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ah grand, let's all sit back and wait so. Sure what's the point in having police actively search for evidence when the evidence will just come to us.

With that reasoning no case should ever be closed. Police only have limited resources. You said there was no way any new evidence could turn up. I showed you that you were wrong so you decided to ignore that point and make up another useless argument that is also wrong.

danmoz wrote: »

Puts them 'off the scent'? There NEVER was a scent. That's the crux of the matter!!

In these cases, those closest to the victim are always, always under suscpicion first. Sorry, that's just fact. If they're innocent, they really should have nothing to worry about. It helps no one but themselves to refuse to co-operate with the police.

Never? There was many other leads. Don't be ridiculous.

Parents & close relatives are often suspected initially yet. As I've pointed out many times that this nothing to worry about argument is totally false.

I also read somewhere that the McCanns were make suspects days before Portuguese law was due to change the conditions & the level of evidence required to make somebody a suspect. I can't find a link for this but I will post one if I can.

You also have to ask why these questions that so many people want asked were not asked of the McCanns BEFORE they were made suspects. By making the McCanns suspects the police were immediately putting the McCanns in a position where they had to defend themselves. The police could have quite innocently interviewed the McCanns as witnesses and found out all they needed to know but they did not.

danmoz

colly10 wrote: »

If neither the Portuguese or British police think there was no abduction then why are these 2 still free? Is the case still ongoing?

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;

Amaral wrote:

Well, I do not have a thesis, the thesis is that of a team of investigators, composed of Portuguese and English police officers, who in September of last year prepared a report that is included in the investigation files, which says that the girl died on May 3rd in the apartment, that the body was concealed and that a crime scenario was simulated, that of abduction.

danmoz

mconigol wrote: »

Never? There was many other leads. Don't be ridiculous..

Really? What were they? Links?

K-9

mconigol wrote: »

Can you please provide a link for your quoted remark?

Also your last line: "This isn't some 'lone gunman' who has it in for them, it's the conclusion of all involved."

Who are are the all involved that agree that the inspector hasn't got it in for them?



Actually he has recently been convicted and sentenced to 18months (suspended) for lying (submitting a false testimony) in another case. So what he says should be taken with a large pinch of salt. He is not credible imo for which he only has himself to blame.

The questions still are there, the dogs, the McCann's changing there story, the child neglect, the door being unlocked.

dark crystal

danmoz wrote: »

Lol, there you go being disingenuous again. They're not 'his' findings, are they? As he has stated, those are the findings of "over a hundred British and Portugese police officers and experts" after a fourteen month investigation. This isn't some 'lone gunman' who has it in for them, it's the conclusion of all involved.

Still, you continue claiming to be 'open minded' whilst showing clear bias in favour of the Mccanns.

How on earth am I being disengenuous exactly?

Look, let's just agree to disagree, shall we? I'm getting more than a little tired of being told I'm this and that because I have a differing viewpoint to others.

I'm open minded in the sense that I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty and I won't pretend to know who is guilty of the crime until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt who the culprit or culprits are.

danmoz

mconigol wrote:

Parents & close relatives are often suspected initially yet. As I've pointed out many times that this nothing to worry about argument is totally false.

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.

wrote:

You also have to ask why these questions that so many people want asked were not asked of the McCanns BEFORE they were made suspects.

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

you're really showing your ignorance here.

Kess73

mconigol wrote: »

Your forgetting that the author of the book that had not been written then was the main inspector in charge of the case. A convicted liar.

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.

K-9

mconigol wrote: »

You also have to ask why these questions that so many people want asked were not asked of the McCanns BEFORE they were made suspects. By making the McCanns suspects the police were immediately putting the McCanns in a position where they had to defend themselves. The police could have quite innocently interviewed the McCanns as witnesses and found out all they needed to know but they did not.

They would have interviewed them as witness's on the night and probably on other occasions. They'd have got witness reports from others and then compared them. Questions obviously arose when the dogs found some evidence. Murat was treated as a suspect too long before that IIRC too, so it seems to be the way they do things there.

Kess73

colly10 wrote: »

If neither the Portuguese or British police think there was no abduction then why are these 2 still free? Is the case still ongoing?

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.

_feedback_

dark crystal wrote: »

But imagine just for a second that they're innocent....as well they may be.

The police they put all their trust in, decide they are the main suspects. This puts them off the scent of the real culprit and slows down the entire investigation.
Would you want them to re-investigate with no extra evidence to go on?

But the police haven't just pulled out of the sky that they may need to look at the McCanns. The information they have available points them that way. But they don't have the evidence to pursue it. I can't understand how they would refuse to re-open an investigation in to their missing daughter for your reasons given. It just stinks!

mconigol wrote: »

I find it amazing that so many people read so much into every sentence she utters yet at the same time complaining that she won't answer all their questions and claiming that she could clear her own name by doing do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

She's been put in a no-win situation. Answer the questions and you get the conspiracy theorists out in full force dissecting every word, inferring all sorts and basically making up their own story. Don't answer the questions and she's obviously admitting guilt by doing so. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

The "conspiracy theorists" are just echoing the words/findings of the investigators. .

MagicMarker

mconigol wrote: »

With that reasoning no case should ever be closed. Police only have limited resources.

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

mconigol wrote: »

You said there was no way any new evidence could turn up.

Err, no, no I didn't.

mconigol wrote: »

I showed you that you were wrong so you decided to ignore that point and make up another useless argument that is also wrong.

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