Madeleine McCann

limnam

SlowBlowin wrote: »

German police statement extract.

"The official added that the investigation linking Christian B to the Madeleine McCann case was now reliant on the help of the public to find clear evidence."

Surely all investigations currently on going require this ?

Doesn't sound as solid as Splinter made out.

splinter65

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

SlowBlowin wrote: »

German police statement extract.

"The official added that the investigation linking Christian B to the Madeleine McCann case was now reliant on the help of the public to find clear evidence."

Yes?

limnam

splinter65 wrote: »

Your grasp of how the justice system works is very poor. The German police say that they have nearly enough evidence to charge this guy with the abduction and murder of Madeleine McCann. Are you suggesting that they are lying about that? Why would they lie about that and what causes you to think that they are lying?

Not suggesting they're lieing.

I'm suggesting there's no evidence for us to ignore.

German police statement extract.

"The official added that the investigation linking Christian B to the Madeleine McCann case was now reliant on the help of the public to find clear evidence."

This is as true for Christain B as it anyone else. So no clear evidence.

SlowBlowin

Accident happened, parents hid body

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes?

Its a fact, I thought the thread was lacking facts.

splinter65

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

Not suggesting they're lieing.

I'm suggesting there's no evidence for us to ignore.

German police statement extract.

"The official added that the investigation linking Christian B to the Madeleine McCann case was now reliant on the help of the public to find clear evidence."

This is as true for Christain B as it anyone else. So no clear evidence.

Good. You’re no longer suggesting that the Germans are lying. So you accept now that if they say they’ve evidence that they’ve evidence. That’s great. I knew you’d come round in the end.

limnam

splinter65 wrote: »

Good. You’re no longer suggesting that the Germans are lying. So you accept now that if they say they’ve evidence that they’ve evidence. That’s great. I knew you’d come round in the end.

They said they need clear evidence.

I believe that.

Everyone does.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

splinter65 wrote: »

Grand. Well in that case then I can say without hesitation that you are the same Hal who knocked my mother off her bike last week and drove away leaving her bleeding on the street. Everyone knows it was you no point in you denying it.

Thankfully I've never met you or your mother. :pac: Very, very poor analogy. Must do better.

splinter65

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

callmehal wrote: »

Thankfully I've never met you or your mother. :pac: Very, very poor analogy. Must do better.

Sorry if you’ve no evidence that you didn’t actually knock her down or that you’ve never met her then I’ll have to conclude that you did. And spend years insisting that you did irregardless of whatever alternative conclusions professional police detectives come to.

antgal23

Maybe the Germans have circumstantial evidence but not real evidence that prove beyond doubt the guy they have did it?

If it is true then the question is do paedophiles or rings target tourist spots in Europe for kids?

feargale

TheW1zard wrote: »

Someone prove the parents didn't do it then :rolleyes:

Law student? I hope not.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

splinter65 wrote: »

Sorry if you’ve no evidence that you didn’t actually knock her down or that you’ve never met her then I’ll have to conclude that you did. And spend years insisting that you did irregardless of whatever alternative conclusions professional police detectives come to.

Oh now that you say it, I have you met your mother before. But that's another story. :pac: Not for this thread.

Back on topic. What explanation did Kate McCann give for leaving her other two kids alone while running back to tell everyone that "they" took Madeleine?

Creol1

Something Else

It's sometimes said Mary Boyle is Ireland's Madeleine McCann and this development reminds me of a similar "breakthrough" in the Mary Boyle case in 2014 that came to nothing: https://www.donegaldaily.com/2015/02/10/i-didnt-kill-mary-boyle-suspect/; https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/missing-mary-is-a-mystery-to-me-says-paedophile-30982826.html. Out of the blue, Gardaí named Brian McMahon, a convicted paedophile with connections to the area and Mary Boyle's family, as a new suspect. However, they had no alternative but to release him without charge as they could not provide any evidence.

Then of course there was the "breakthrough" in the Philip Cairns case when a different convicted paedophile, Eamonn Cooke, was named as a possible suspect on grounds that were even more tenuous and quite implausible.

That's not to say this new suspect in the McCann case should be discounted automatically, but it's something to bear in mind.

cgcsb

Something Else

splinter65 wrote: »

You are totally discounting all the evidence the Germans have collated on Christian B then?
Why?
So you are now admitting that there is no evidence that the McCanns harmed their child. That’s good.
You do know that suspicion is meaningless and a matter of personal preference and as such is totally irrelevant?
For example I can observe my neighbor having many late night callers and be suspicious that they’re a drug dealer but it would be completely meaningless and some people would say I was a weird crank if I suggested otherwise.

What are you on about? The German police haven't any evidence against Christian B and they've admitted that. I never said that there was conclusive proof of the McCann guilt. There is evidence that points at them though.

cgcsb

Something Else

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i just picked this post randomly as a typical social media problem post that seems to have escalated since lockdown, what makes people post like this?

Wtf? There's something wrong with wanting the McCanns to come clean?

dark crystal

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

cgcsb wrote: »

Wtf? There's something wrong with wanting the McCanns to come clean?

Come clean? About what exactly?

cgcsb

Something Else

dark crystal wrote: »

Come clean? About what exactly?

Whatever reason they had for lying and not cooperating with the police from day 1.

weldoninhio

Something Else

limnam wrote: »

How can it be a myth when she wrote it in her own book?

Are you suggesting she's a liar?

Jesus, they better not be. The McCanns have sued people for less.

weldoninhio

Something Else

splinter65 wrote: »

If your accusing somebody of a crime then you need to show evidence that they committed that crime.
No evidence has been shown. None.
The person being accused doesn’t have to prove anything.
That’s the way the world works.
So no, accusations without explanations or evidence are totally irrelevant and not in any way valid.

Do you think this is a court of law?? It’s not. People can hold whatever opinions they want and don’t “need” to show diddly.

weldoninhio

Something Else

splinter65 wrote: »

So the German police say they have nearly enough evidence to charge him after some years of hard work.
You read an article online and decide that in your opinion as an leading armchair keyboard investigator they don’t actually have enough evidence.
Hmmmmm.... who should I believe?!?
The German police? Or you?

You realise that “nearly enough evidence to charge” is the exact same as “don’t actually have enough evidence”.

splinter65

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

cgcsb wrote: »

Whatever reason they had for lying and not cooperating with the police from day 1.

But who says they didn’t co operate with the police or that they lied? You?

cgcsb

Something Else

splinter65 wrote: »

But who says they didn’t co operate with the police or that they lied? You?

This is public knowledge you can see it on the documentaries about the case. They changed their story multiple times about checking on the kids, time line, leaving the door locked or unlocked and they've never answered about why kate tampered with the window after finding maddie missing and no explanation for where the teddy bear came from and then they fled the country.

The staff at the restaurant also contradict most of their story.

limnam

splinter65 wrote: »

But who says they didn’t co operate with the police or that they lied? You?

When she was made a suspect she refused to answer any questions.

I'd say by definition this is not co-operating.

They're trying to help find your child, why would you refuse to answer any questions

cnocbui

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

When she was made a suspect she refused to answer any questions.

I'd say by definition this is not co-operating.

They're trying to help find your child, why would you refuse to answer any questions

Her lawyer telling her not to might have had something to do with it. The police weren't trying to find Madeline, they were trying to fit up the McCanns. The Portuguese authorities later realised Amaral was a piece of work and got rid of him. I am sure they already knew what he was like due to the earlier Leonor Cipriano, beating case, but his sin was not having the brains to figure that the normal routine methods of police conduct wouldn't cut it with the attention of the world's media paying close interest.

At the time, every intimate detail of what should have been a sub-judice investigation was being leaked to the Portuguese press and, via them, ending up in the UK red-tops. Rumours about swingers, carefully chosen details from Kate's diary, made up nonsense about finding DNA, an incredible stream of lies and targeted leaks to smear the McCanns in the public eye.

In most other countries there would have been an uproar about the police and their campaign against the McCanns and Amaral would have at least been fired and possibly ended up in gaol for perverting the course of Justice, but I get the impression this is how Portugal and it's joke of a legal system and process 'works'. This is the country where a man picked up a young British hitchhiker trying to get to the airport and home, kidnapped her, raped her, admitted all of this in court, and the judge let him off without sentence and he literally walked out of the court laughing at his victim.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

cnocbui wrote: »

Her lawyer telling her not to might have had something to do with it. The police weren't trying to find Madeline, they were trying to fit up the McCanns. The Portuguese authorities later realised Amaral was a piece of work and got rid of him. I am sure they already knew what he was like due to the earlier Leonor Cipriano, beating case, but his sin was not having the brains to figure that the normal routine methods of police conduct wouldn't cut it with the attention of the world's media paying close interest.

At the time, every intimate detail of what should have been a sub-judice investigation was being leaked to the Portuguese press and, via them, ending up in the UK red-tops. Rumours about swingers, carefully chosen details from Kate's diary, made up nonsense about finding DNA, an incredible stream of lies and targeted leaks to smear the McCanns in the public eye.

In most other countries there would have been an uproar about the police and their campaign against the McCanns and Amaral would have at least been fired and possibly ended up in gaol for perverting the course of Justice, but I get the impression this is how Portugal and it's joke of a legal system and process 'works'. This is the country where a man picked up a young British hitchhiker trying to get to the airport and home, kidnapped her, raped her, admitted all of this in court, and the judge let him off without sentence and he literally walked out of the court laughing at his victim.

Not to mention the fact that she had already answered all the same questions prior to being made arguido.
If the Portuguese police were really trying to find Madeleine they had the answers to all those questions already available to them.
But they weren’t trying to do that, they were trying to implicate the parents. Hence their solicitor very wisely told them not to answer any questions.

It’s not like this hasn’t been discussed umpteen times on thread already, and it’s still raised regularly as some sort of concrete evidence they did it. Bizarre.

callmehal

Accident happened, parents hid body

Anyone got any proof that the Portuguese police were trying to fit the McCanns up? Thought not. Like someone said earlier in the thread. There's 2 sides of the same coin at play here. Both as bad as each other.

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that she had already answered all the same questions prior to being made arguido.
If the Portuguese police were really trying to find Madeleine they had the answers to all those questions already available to them.
But they weren’t trying to do that, they were trying to implicate the parents. Hence their solicitor very wisely told them not to answer any questions.

It’s not like this hasn’t been discussed umpteen times on thread already, and it’s still raised regularly as some sort of concrete evidence they did it. Bizarre.

It's not been raised as anything. Other than a point to show she refused to co-operate when someone made a statement she did. As a suspect. She did not.

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

It's not been raised as anything. Other than a point to show she refused to co-operate when someone made a statement she did. As a suspect. She did not.

You’re giving half a story to suit your own narrative though. The fact that she had already answered all the questions is a relevant piece of information when you’re talking about the fact that she ‘wouldn’t cooperate’.

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

You’re giving half a story to suit your own narrative though. The fact that she had already answered all the questions is a relevant piece of information when you’re talking about the fact that she ‘wouldn’t cooperate’.

She wouldn't co-operate as a suspect.

not sure what your issue is with that?

Am I wrong?

SusieBlue

She wandered out herself, something happened (car accident/paedo)

limnam wrote: »

She wouldn't co-operate as a suspect.

not sure what your issue is with that?

Am I wrong?

In the interest of transparency, had she already answered all these questions prior to being made an arguido?

limnam

SusieBlue wrote: »

In the interest of transparency, had she already answered all these questions prior to being made an arguido?

The statement made was she did not refuse to co-operate.

She did. As a suspect.