Could Madeleine McCann still be found?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

ligerdub wrote: »

On the money, and herein lies the issue, and the reason why there must be challenges made to the "how dare you accuse so and so of doing such a thing".

People always project their own morals in a way to understand the actions of others. That in itself is not a bad thing of course, it does show a degree of empathy, but with that should also come the realisation that everyone is different, and even good people can make mistakes. In many ways it is the battle of full-on empaths and full-on logic and most likely solutions people. It's mainly why there is usually such heated exchanges with stories such as this. I think the best contributors are those who can at least put feet in both camps.

The likes of the "I saw this documentary about some kid who went missing for 30 years and they always thought the parents were involved" are completely irrelevant and misleading. It reflects a possibility, but is so incredibly unlikely at this stage that it doesn't merit consideration. You're willing to swallow that option, but not a far more likely scenario.

I admire the fact that people are willing to see the good in people, but the issue here is for the sake of the child, she is the real victim here, and the people who challenge the accepted public view of the McCann's as being unknowing unfortunates is done not for vindictive purposes, but for quite the opposite reason.

That's absolute rubbish. There is no justification for publicly speculating about the parents involvement and publishing those speculations on line. People are entitled to think what they like, but making public accusation as some on here are doing, is irresponsible and nasty.

ligerdub

Delaney Flat Insecticide wrote: »

That's absolute rubbish. There is no justification for publicly speculating about the parents involvement and publishing those speculations on line. People are entitled to think what they like, but making public accusation as some on here are doing, is irresponsible and nasty.

By that logic there is no justification to talk about it whatsoever (including the view that she was kidnapped by somebody not including her parents), and a hell of a lot of other things for that matter.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Discussing it in general and whether or not she was kidnapped is not libelling or slandering anyone, damaging their reputation, or making unfounded accusations against an individual.

If you can't see the difference, there's no point in arguing about it.

scamalert

Candie wrote: »

All the people who are utterly convinced of the parents involvement should present all the incontrovertible, compelling and conclusive evidence that convinced them to the police.

Otherwise they should bear in mind that in the absence of a conviction, they are accusing two innocent parents of murdering their child.

Yes they left them alone. That makes them negligent. It doesn't make them murderers.

well Portuguese suspected them for long time,since theres a lot of ? marks to seeing strange blond guys,one of the maccans friends voluntering to check on kids,then seeing kid taken in alley which appread to be another brit taking his child back from chreche,which matched the sketch if you can even call that.and this part here:

Another issue was whether the exterior shutter over Madeleine's bedroom window could be opened from outside. Kate McCann said the shutter and window were closed when Madeleine was put to bed, and both were open when she discovered Madeleine was missing. Her husband told the Polícia Judiciária that, when he was first alerted to the disappearance, he had lowered the shutter, then had gone outside and discovered that it could be raised from the outside.[103][104]
Against this, the police said the shutter could not be raised from the outside without being forced, but there was no sign of forced entry. According to journalist Danny Collins, the shutter was made of non-ferrous metal slats linked together on a roller blind that was housed in a box at the top of the inside window, controlled by pulling on a strap. He writes that the shutter was gravity-fed; once rolled down, the slats locked in place outside the window and could only be raised using the strap on the inside.[105]

jameorahiely

scamalert wrote: »

well Portuguese suspected them for long time,since theres a lot of ? marks to seeing strange blond guys,one of the maccans friends voluntering to check on kids,then seeing kid taken in alley which appread to be another brit taking his child back from chreche,which matched the sketch if you can even call that.and this part here:

Another issue was whether the exterior shutter over Madeleine's bedroom window could be opened from outside. Kate McCann said the shutter and window were closed when Madeleine was put to bed, and both were open when she discovered Madeleine was missing. Her husband told the Polícia Judiciária that, when he was first alerted to the disappearance, he had lowered the shutter, then had gone outside and discovered that it could be raised from the outside.[103][104]
Against this, the police said the shutter could not be raised from the outside without being forced, but there was no sign of forced entry. According to journalist Danny Collins, the shutter was made of non-ferrous metal slats linked together on a roller blind that was housed in a box at the top of the inside window, controlled by pulling on a strap. He writes that the shutter was gravity-fed; once rolled down, the slats locked in place outside the window and could only be raised using the strap on the inside.[105]

Only 1 set of prints (Kates? ) were found on the window

maebee

31st January 2017, 3:30 pm

Maddie McCann’s parents lose court appeal to silence cop who claims they covered up daughter’s death

MADELEINE McCann’s parents have lost their new court appeal to silence the ex-cop who claims they covered up their daughter’s death, Portuguese media reports.

Portuguese Supreme Court judges met to resolve the couple’s fight against a lower court’s decision last April to reverse their 2015 libel win against Goncalo Amaral.

The hearing took place in private in Lisbon this morning.

The decision is a major milestone in Gerry and Kate McCann’s eight-year fight over a book written by Amaral, who led the initial hunt when then-three-year-old Madeleine vanished from their Algarve holiday apartment in May 2007.

Amaral was ordered to pay Kate and Gerry £430,000 plus interest in damages after losing round one of their libel battle in April 2015 over his hurtful book ‘The Truth of the Lie.’

Appeal judges reversed the initial ruling by a court in Lisbon in April last year, siding with the former police chief and overturning a ban on his book.

The decision sparked a fresh appeal by the McCanns to the country’s highest law court.

The couple could now face a huge legal bill, which had been frozen until the outcome of the final appeal.

The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte lodged the couple’s new appeal last May after vowing to fight the U-turn by judges over Amaral’s book.

Criticising the ruling in favour of the ex-police chief, which a friend of the McCanns said had left them “seething,” she said: “This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts.

Bambi985

Course she could. Will she be found? I'd say almost definitely not at this stage.
not alive anyway.

MonkieSocks

jameorahiely wrote: »

Only 1 set of prints (Kates? ) were found on the window

The McAnns had been in that apartment for a good few days.

I imagine her fingerprints would be all over the apartment.

scamalert

MonkieSocks wrote: »

The McAnns had been in that apartment for a good few days.

I imagine her fingerprints would be all over the apartment.

depending what article you read by the time they got to fingerprint place and bring in dogs the place had over 30 people go in and out of it.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

maebee wrote: »

31st January 2017, 3:30 pm

That has gone to further appeal and rightly so.

steddyeddy

I don't care whether Kate or Gerry were cold or not. I think the reaction of the blood hound in the apartment is more telling. The dogs are highly sensitive to cadaverine, a molecule which is generated from putrefying flesh. According to Spanish police the dogs went straight towards a scent when they were brought into the Mcann's apartment.

scamalert

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't care whether Kate or Gerry were cold or not. I think the reaction of the blood hound in the apartment is more telling. The dogs are highly sensitive to cadaverine, a molecule which is generated from putrefying flesh. According to Spanish police the dogs went straight towards a scent when they were brought into the Mcann's apartment.

not forensic but makes no sense since body decay starts way later,not say after few hours,thus picking dead skin cells would be as saying dead scent ?

Miley Byrne

osarusan wrote: »

I was at a Limerick FC versus Sporting Fingal cup game about 6 years ago, and we scored a last minute equaliser to force a replay. Some Limerick fans had been insulting/taunting the Fingal keeper Darren Quigley all night, and in the raucous aftermath of our late late goal, just as the cheers quieted down a bit, I could hear somebody roaring at him, "Where's Madeleine, Quigley? What have you done with her?"

Ok, so three things:

1. What sort of an idiotic/random thing is that to shout at a football match? Seriously like?

2. For what reason did you think it might interest people for you regurgitate the story here?

3. Am I missing some sort of context here or something?

jameorahiely

MonkieSocks wrote: »

The McAnns had been in that apartment for a good few days.

I imagine her fingerprints would be all over the apartment.

But no kidapper prints or evidence Madeleine was passed out through the window (as had been suggested she was)

Why open the window when all the doors were unlocked?


Didn't Gerry have to return to England to get a sample of Madeleine's DNA? The children only had 1 tooth brush between them


Cuddlecat was on the shelf, but there was no shelf

marklazarcovic

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't care whether Kate or Gerry were cold or not. I think the reaction of the blood hound in the apartment is more telling. The dogs are highly sensitive to cadaverine, a molecule which is generated from putrefying flesh. According to Spanish police the dogs went straight towards a scent when they were brought into the Mcann's apartment.

read up about the dogs,and their success rate,and their handler ,last i seen it was 200 indications,100 % proved right ,no failures,fbi enlisted them and their handler since.

indicated 11 cadaver in this case,in apartment,outside it, in car rented 3 weeks after she went missing,couple of locations in car. the blood dog indicated the same places in apartment,and car,same spots exactly.


could be coincidence i suppose.




the only clues or 'evidence' all point to a completely different series of events then the family would like us to believe, there is nothing at all to indicate she was taken by anyone she did not know. nothing.

that to me is compelling ,even after all these years,forget any interviews or body language. if the family were from a council estate with a few minor offences to their names this would have been a very very different case entirely.

XsApollo

Another thing that struck me about the dogs was in the MCCann's residence, the place they were staying after everything came to light , was the cadaver dog indicated on her toy in a wardrobe in the house.
Now if the fact if she was taken and the toy left behind, then why would the toy have cadaver odour on it?

I think cadaver odour starts to occur on the body a couple of hours after somebody dies.
So why would the toy have odour on it?

If the kids were being checked every 30 mins, and if Maddie was asleep and then somebody abducted her, left the toy behind then you would presume it wouldn't have odour on it.

Another scenario would be her abducter murdered her in the apartment and then removed her from the scene leaving the toy behind,
Again tho if the apartment was being checked regularly then that would maybe leave at the max 30mins of her holding the toy after whatever happened , happened. Which would be unlikely she held the toy , if that scenario occurred.

Would the other kids wake in that scenario? Possibly.

Another scenario was she was asleep and she passed in her sleep and was there for a few hours in the bed, with the toy, which would probably explain why the dogs picked up the odour.

It's harrowing stuff reading the evidence and on the McCann pj site.

They said somebody died in that apartment in their report.
Judging by the dogs reactions.
Was it Maddie ?
Who knows, but it's messed up.

A Little Pony

Delaney Flat Insecticide wrote: »

There are some really disgraceful posts on here. No one knows what happened to Madeleine McCann but we have armchair detectives making serious and slanderous accusations about her parents based on: the way Kate looked at the camera, something a journalist told them, because Gerry looks like a sociopath, because Kate reminds them of someone else who abducted a child.....

This isn't an episode of Lewis. It's a real life tragedy, no one knows where Madeleine is, and making up theories about her parents is cruel and vindictive. Yes, they made a huge error in leaving her alone, but that doesn't make them murderers.

The people enjoying publicly expressing their unfounded and damaging opinions for all to read should have a long hard look at themselves.

People can smell the BS, its literally a pool full of it.

ligerdub

marklazarcovic wrote: »

read up about the dogs,and their success rate,and their handler ,last i seen it was 200 indications,100 % proved right ,no failures,fbi enlisted them and their handler since.

indicated 11 cadaver in this case,in apartment,outside it, in car rented 3 weeks after she went missing,couple of locations in car. the blood dog indicated the same places in apartment,and car,same spots exactly.


could be coincidence i suppose.

the only clues or 'evidence' all point to a completely different series of events then the family would like us to believe, there is nothing at all to indicate she was taken by anyone she did not know. nothing.

that to me is compelling ,even after all these years,forget any interviews or body language. if the family were from a council estate with a few minor offences to their names this would have been a very very different case entirely.

Exactly, and a lot of people have a different definition of compelling it seems.

Spanish Eyes

I will say it again, and I don't care who comes back and says something like "ah we all did it at one time or another" no we didn't!

If you go abroad with young kids, they either come out with you at night, (and in Med countries this is absolutely no problem unlike here might I add), or you arrange for a babysitter in your hotel room or apartment.

I do believe the kids were sedated. There isn't a child on the planet who would NEVER wake up and cry for mum and dad. God that's the saddest part for me. The kids were in a creche all day and in an unlocked apartment all night. I can't for the life of me figure out why they brought the kids at all!

All other parents who went to the bar at least had a baby monitor, that wasn't optimum either, but better than the Mc Canns.

Anyway to those who live sheltered lives, the parents WERE responsible for the child's disappearance whether they had any actual involvement or not. I don't need to spell it out again. But since you ask me..... if the children had been properly minded by a babysitter, or been with them at the restaurant/bar Madeleine would still be here. Is that clear enough now for those with rose tinted specs on?

Parental responsibility is a big thing, if you are proven to be neglectful your kids are taken into care. But not in this case of course, because they were medics and middle class.

GLaDOS

I don't think anyone has denied the parents were incredibly negligent

Spanish Eyes

GLaDOS wrote: »

I don't think anyone has denied the parents were incredibly negligent

And therefore they are ultimately responsible for the loss of their daughter aren't they?

ligerdub

Delaney Flat Insecticide wrote: »

Discussing it in general and whether or not she was kidnapped is not libelling or slandering anyone, damaging their reputation, or making unfounded accusations against an individual.

If you can't see the difference, there's no point in arguing about it.

There have been several posts (better put that I have done to be fair) put forward which can't be easily batted away by those who just point blank refuse to believe in the idea that the parents know what happened (edit: not suggesting it was malicious). They've constantly been ignored.

True enough there are posts which go a little close to the bone, but that doesn't preclude the proper posts from being valid and debatable.

The McCanns lost their appeal today against the detective who has been vilified on here (I don't see anyone wishing censorship on that though). He had his assets frozen for years by the McCanns actions, and was only able to bring his appeal to court through the donations of people supporting what he was trying to do, at least that's vindication for him.

It'll be interesting to see how the general mood changes if that book ends up on the shelves at your local Eason. At this stage people might not care, that's my guess.

Shutting down people who put forward claims which don't fit into an idealised view of the world do more harm than good, and feed into this Sky News culture where the standard narrative is the only narrative.

If you can't see that there's no point in arguing about it.

They are responsible for leaving her unattended.

Whoever took her is responsible for taking her.

ligerdub

Candie wrote: »

They are responsible for leaving her unattended.

Whoever took her is responsible for taking her.

Only one of those sentences is a known fact.

KKkitty

Why were they trying to silence the Portuguese police if there was nothing to hide?

ligerdub

GLaDOS wrote: »

I don't think anyone has denied the parents were incredibly negligent

Let's state it more clearly than that: the parents were incredibly negligent.

Spanish Eyes

[QUOTE=Candie;102469531They are responsible for leaving her unattended.

Whoever took her is responsible for taking her.[/QUOTE]

Who took her? Is there any evidence of that fact anywhere? NO.

I really cannot understand how anyone would absolve the parents for their neglect with a statement like that.

Now of course if the parents had been hard drinking scangers on Social Welfare, out on the lash with the kids left alone for hours every night, the resulting scenario regarding the kids future welfare would never be in doubt. And the parents would most likely be in jail as a result of the daughter being missing.

dark crystal

KKkitty wrote: »

Why were they trying to silence the Portuguese police if there was nothing to hide?

Silence the police??

They were suing the Portuguese detective removed from the case for writing a book saying they were child killers.

You really don't understand why they might have an issue with him doing that?

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Anyway to those who live sheltered lives,[.......] Is that clear enough now for those with rose tinted specs on?
.

Is there really any need for the condescension?

ligerdub

dark crystal wrote: »

Silence the police??

They were suing the Portuguese detective removed from the case for writing a book saying they were child killers.

You really don't understand why they might have an issue with him doing that?

How did they get on?