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

Madeleine McCann

Options
1…193194196198199…264

Comments

  • Options
    #5852
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    So you admit that she had answered all the questions before, and that you were misrepresenting the situation when you said that she had refused to answer any and all questions put to her?

    To correct the record. Once Kate was formally made a suspect she refused to answer any questions that were put to her at interview.

    Do you really think that this exonerates her of her duty to truthfully answer all questions that were put to her? Strange view point one. I didn't phase it like that initially because I didnt wouldn't consider it as being a valid point.


  • Options
    #5853
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    OwlsZat wrote: »
    To correct the record. Once Kate was formally made a suspect she refused to answer any questions that were put to her at interview.

    Do you really think that this exonerates her of her duty to truthfully answer all questions that were put to her? Strange view point one. I didn't phase it like that initially because I didnt wouldn't consider it as being a valid point.

    Thanks for clarifying.
    Yes I do think it exonerates her, for reasons I already explained. If you’d ignore professional legal advice and answer anyway, that’s your prerogative, but I can understand why she wouldn’t and I don’t think it signifies her guilt in any manner:
    She didn’t withhold any information and she only stopped cooperating when they stopped looking for Madeleine. No good could have come out of answering those questions again.


  • Options
    #5854
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,728 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    OwlsZat wrote: »
    To correct the record. Once Kate was formally made a suspect she refused to answer any questions that were put to her at interview.

    Do you really think that this exonerates her of her duty to truthfully answer all questions that were put to her? Strange view point one. I didn't phase it like that initially because I didnt wouldn't consider it as being a valid point.

    I think that if her Solicitor tells her not to answer, then there clearly is no duty.


  • Options
    #5855
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    TheW1zard wrote: »
    Didnt their mobile ping off various towers while travelling around in the rental. What are you doing taking excursions 3 weeks after your kids gone missing.
    Im not new to the topic, nor am i trolling a thread!
    So many dodgy things about the case!

    These are the questions Kate refused to answer after being made a suspect. Some of the things inferred are quite daming. Amazing a seemingly innocent person didn't choose to refute the one's that were incorrect.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6816327/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-didnt-answer-disappearance-daughter-Madeleine.html


  • Options
    #5856
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    cnocbui wrote: »
    I think that if her Solicitor tells her not to answer, then there clearly is no duty.

    Why would a solicitor tell an innocent person not to tell the truth? Obviously they don't.

    A solicitor might tell a guilty party not to answer if they believe that there's a risk lies told trying to claim innocence might be fallable and instead prove guilt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5857
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    She only stopped cooperating when they stopped looking for Madeleine. No good could have come out of answering those questions

    She didn't look herself for Madeline. Ironically, the police stopped looking for the same reason she didn't bother looking in the first place. People who suffer great tragedy thirst for the truth. If she had a genuine want for the truth. She would have cooperated fully and aided in establishing it.


  • Options
    #5858
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    OwlsZat wrote: »
    These are the questions Kate refused to answer after being made a suspect. Some of the things inferred are quite daming. Amazing a seemingly innocent person didn't choose to refute the one's that were incorrect.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6816327/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-didnt-answer-disappearance-daughter-Madeleine.html

    You aren’t giving the full picture there and I won’t stop pointing it out until you stop misrepresenting what happened.

    It no longer seems quite as ‘damning’ or suspicious when you consider she had ALREADY answered them all, several times over.
    She refuted them and cooperated in 8-12 hour long interviews in the week leading up to being made arguido.
    A very relevant point you keep dishonestly leaving out.


  • Options
    #5859
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    OwlsZat wrote: »
    She didn't look herself for Madine. Ironically, the police stopped looking for the same reason she didn't bother looking in the first place. People who suffer great tragedy thirst for the truth. If she had a genuine want for the truth. She would have cooperated fully and aided in establishing it.

    A very mean spirited and judgmental attitude to take when you’ve never been in her position.
    You have no idea how you’d personally react to such a situation, stress, fear, anger, frustration and sadness can cause a person to do all sorts of things.
    Stop judging her based on what you suppose you’d do. It’s completely irrelevant when it’s never happened to you.

    Ironically, Kate is the only woman I’ve ever heard of whose child disappeared while on holiday.
    So seeing as there’s no other case to compare it to, I could claim that Kate’s reaction is the ‘normal’ one.
    But I wouldn’t be so ignorant to make that assumption when I know that each individual would have a different response and none of those are wrong and none of those make them guilty of anything.


  • Options
    #5860
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    You aren’t giving the full picture there and I won’t stop pointing it out until you stop misrepresenting what happened.

    It no longer seems quite as ‘damning’ or suspicious when you consider she had ALREADY answered them all, several times over.
    She refuted them and cooperated in 8-12 hour long interviews in the week leading up to being made arguido.
    A very relevant point you keep dishonestly leaving out.

    Calling someone dishonest because they dont agree with your feeble point is childish at best. Give over.


  • Options
    #5861
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    OwlsZat wrote: »
    Calling someone dishonest because they dont agree without your feeble point is childish at best. Give over.

    Yes, I don’t agree with the fact that you keep intentionally leaving out the fact that she has already answered all of those questions. It’s not feeble, it’s relevant.

    You are saying it’s damning that she refused to answer, she had already answered. That fact changes the whole context of your point, it’s not so damning when that part is included.
    So long as you keep refusing to acknowledge it, I’ll keep pointing it out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5862
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    The point about being made Arguido is made in the Guardian below. It's an interview technique used when it's obvious to authorities that the persons version of events can be proven to be untruthful. Kate was instructed by her lawyer not to answer as she would have implicated herself in Madelines death.


    She was exceptionally lucky not to be prosecuted. Too much of the evidence was circumstantial and because she offered no answers the lies could not be tested against. Instead the case fell lame and they got away. That's the law for you. Plenty guilty people get away.


    "Depending on the answers they may be moving towards a prosecution. If you cannot provide an alibi or the right answers they may move to prosecute. This is a serious moment. The suspect may be close to being charged," Ms Gale said."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/07/ukcrime.madeleinemccann2


  • Options
    #5863
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,728 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    OwlsZat wrote: »
    She didn't look herself for Madeline. Ironically, the police stopped looking for the same reason she didn't bother looking in the first place. People who suffer great tragedy thirst for the truth. If she had a genuine want for the truth. She would have cooperated fully and aided in establishing it.

    Yes she did. Check the nannie's account of the night MM went missing.


  • Options
    #5864
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Something Else
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Yes, I don’t agree with the fact that you keep intentionally leaving out the fact that she has already answered all of those questions. It’s not feeble, it’s relevant.

    You are saying it’s damning that she refused to answer, she had already answered. That fact changes the whole context of your point, it’s not so damning when that part is included.
    So long as you keep refusing to acknowledge it, I’ll keep pointing it out.

    It’s certainly NOT fact that she had already answered those questions. If you’re so sure that she did, what were the answers she provided?

    At the end of the day, they screamed abduction from the minute it happened. They even rang family and told them that the window had been smashed. The window wasn’t smashed. In fact, it didn’t even open from outside. Then the story changed to the door been open... the tapas 9 completely contradicted each other, despite only been at the table for just over an hour. Text messages were deleted on phones. The dogs signalled in the apartment and at the cars. They wouldn’t do a reconstruction as they didn’t see the point. There are plenty of reasons to at the very least not rule them out.


  • Options
    #5865
    TheW1zard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,340 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Cmere didnt she run out of the apartment screaming "They took her".
    Not a normal first reaction


  • Options
    #5866
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Something Else
    TheW1zard wrote: »
    Cmere didnt she run out of the apartment screaming "They took her".
    Not a normal first reaction

    And back down to the bar with the 2 twins left in the room alone.


  • Options
    #5867
    TheW1zard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,340 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    Havent watched the Netflix thing but this I found a good watch.
    I went into it impartial but obviously think otherwise now.

    https://youtu.be/uS6ucYudNAo


  • Options
    #5868
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    My favourite lie Kate told is the nonsense she kept talking about the window.

    Curtains blowing, shutters open and I knew Madeline was taken. Then it turns out the window was 46cm across and a meter off the ground!

    Total con artist.


  • Options
    #5869
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭OwlsZat


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    TheW1zard wrote: »
    Havent watched the Netflix thing but this I found a good watch.
    I went into it impartial but obviously think otherwise now.

    https://youtu.be/uS6ucYudNAo

    Amazing how many of the experts agree on an accidental death.


  • Options
    #5870
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    TheW1zard wrote: »
    Cmere didnt she run out of the apartment screaming "They took her".
    Not a normal first reaction

    There are a few things that feel suspicious to me about kate.

    1. "They took her!" - What was that all about?
    2. She and Gerry played squash they day after the disappearance. Who would do that? When my cat went missing, I couldn't even watch TV, never mind think about doing sport.
    3. She washed cuddle cat because it had gotten grimey. :confused:


  • Options
    #5871
    mcgragger
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭mcgragger


    Accident happened, parents hid body
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    There are a few things that feel suspicious to me about kate.

    1. "They took her!" - What was that all about?
    2. She and Gerry played squash they day after the disappearance. Who would do that? When my cat went missing, I couldn't even watch TV, never mind think about doing sport.
    3. She washed cuddle cat because it had gotten grimey. :confused:

    Its a mystery for the ages.

    If the parents did it accidentally or not what did they do with the body of the poor child?

    How can you dispose of a child corpse?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5872
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    mcgragger wrote: »
    Its a mystery for the ages.

    If the parents did it accidentally or not what did they do with the body of the poor child?

    How can you dispose of a child corpse?

    Then the cadaver dog getting a scent in a car they rented weeks after the disappearance.


  • Options
    #5873
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The parents did it
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    They didnt hire the car until 3 weeks after she disappeared. How do you propose they hid the body for 3 weeks and subsequently disposed of it, with the police breathing down their neck and every news station in the world camped outside their apartment, following their every move?

    They don't have to keep the body for 3 weeks. But if they reuse a bag that had carried a body, that could be a detection, example.


  • Options
    #5874
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    They don't have to keep the body for 3 weeks. But if they reuse a bag that had carried a body, that could be a detection, example.

    Nothing was detected in the car.

    The dog gave an indication. The follow up investigation detected nothing.


  • Options
    #5875
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    Phoebas wrote: »
    Nothing was detected in the car.

    The dog gave an indication. The follow up investigation detected nothing.

    And the dogs were also found to be incompetent, they gave false positive alerts in subsequent cases and were retired from service not long after.
    They simply aren’t reliable.


  • Options
    #5876
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They don't have to keep the body for 3 weeks. But if they reuse a bag that had carried a body, that could be a detection, example.

    Sorry but that just isn’t credible, why on earth would they keep and continue to use the bag they used to store their daughters corpse if they were trying to avoid rousing any suspicion?


  • Options
    #5877
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The parents did it
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Sorry but that just isn’t credible, why on earth would they keep and continue to use the bag they used to store their daughters corpse if they were trying to avoid rousing any suspicion?

    How would I know? I merely give an example of what could happen


  • Options
    #5878
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    And the dogs were also found to be incompetent, they gave false positive alerts in subsequent cases and were retired from service not long after.
    They simply aren’t reliable.

    Even if they were unreliable.

    While drinking brandy with a known pedophile she wrote how she laughed as the pedophile joked the dog wouldn't be allowed up on the stand.

    Bizarre behavior for a mother discussing people taking tax payers money to assist her in finding her daughter.

    As usual with this story

    We can dismiss things here and there

    With the McCanns we have to dismiss a mountain of oddity. This shouldn't be the case for incident people in the wrong place at the wrong time.


  • Options
    #5879
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,728 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    Even if they were unreliable.

    While drinking brandy with a known pedophile she wrote how she laughed as the pedophile joked the dog wouldn't be allowed up on the stand.

    Bizarre behavior for a mother discussing people taking tax payers money to assist her in finding her daughter.

    As usual with this story

    We can dismiss things here and there

    With the McCanns we have to dismiss a mountain of oddity. This shouldn't be the case for incident people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    He wasn't a known pedophile. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #5880
    limnam
    Registered Users Posts: 9,152 ✭✭✭limnam


    cnocbui wrote: »
    He wasn't a known pedophile. :rolleyes:

    Weird that you chose that aspect to comment on and not the fact she joked with him regarding the dog taking the stand.

    Why is his status of a pedophile more important to you to defend than her actions?

    Ignoring that.

    He's a known pedophile.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5881
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,728 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)
    limnam wrote: »
    Weird that you chose that aspect to comment on and not the fact she joked with him regarding the dog taking the stand.

    Why is his status of a pedophile more important to you to defend than her actions?

    Ignoring that.

    He's a known pedophile.

    Is it possible Kate McCann could have known he was a pedophile at the time? There. Get it now?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement