Madeleine McCann

Day Lewin · 23-06-2020 03:00PM

Babooshka wrote: »

This thread is so groundhog day, it's so boring. Can we not all just agree that the McCanns didn't "make a mistake"? This is the term that seems to insense the McCann hating side of the thread. They didn't make a mistake - they knowingly left their kids alone. I know this. I still feel empathy for them after their daughter was taken. I am still angry at them for leaving her alone in her time of need, I am still baffled by such a decision. I still think that the monster who is responsible for her disappearance should have his balls torn off by Rottweilers and every hair on his body plucked out one by one forever more. Can we just leave it and move on, 150 pages of arguing later, can we please? The authorities didn't see fit to charge them with negligence so just get over it and for God's sake move on.

Hear hear! Well said.

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 03:08PM

Babooshka wrote: »

This thread is so groundhog day, it's so boring. Can we not all just agree that the McCanns didn't "make a mistake"? This is the term that seems to insense the McCann hating side of the thread. They didn't make a mistake - they knowingly left their kids alone. I know this. I still feel empathy for them after their daughter was taken. I am still angry at them for leaving her alone in her time of need, I am still baffled by such a decision. I still think that the monster who is responsible for her disappearance should have his balls torn off by Rottweilers and every hair on his body plucked out one by one forever more. Can we just leave it and move on, 150 pages of arguing later, can we please? The authorities didn't see fit to charge them with negligence so just get over it and for God's sake move on.

What evidence is there that she was taken? The only evidence that exists is the absence of Maddie which in itself doesn't prove abduction.

Babooshka · 23-06-2020 03:12PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What evidence is there that she was taken? The only evidence that exists is the absence of Maddie which in itself doesn't prove abduction.

If you want to continue arguing around in circles knock yourself out, I am not going into that madness with anyone. I was just asking anyone reasonable to move on, I realise not everyone will want to though.

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 03:19PM

Babooshka wrote: »

If you want to continue arguing around in circles knock yourself out, I am not going into that madness with anyone. I was just asking anyone reasonable to move on, I realise not everyone will want to though.

There is no evidence she was abducted, that's a fact at present. Nothing got to do with reasonable or unreasonable.

Babooshka · 23-06-2020 03:41PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There is no evidence she was abducted, that's a fact at present. Nothing got to do with reasonable or unreasonable.

Well the thing is, I'm reading and contributing to this since the beginning. I'd happily argue my thoughts and opinions if the repartee was anyway friendly or reasonable but I find the McCann haters style of posting very provocative, ramming their opinions down the neck of anyone who'll take it, seeking arguments with anyone, demanding proof the McCann's didn't do something that night. It's not something anyone can do. It's futile and goes around in circles. I know this, I am reasonable, so I won't go there, it's ended up with bannings. That's all. Enjoy your day.

Edit: Plus this is current affairs, the whole thing has gone back 13 years with all of these futile arguments, the arguments should really be in the true crime thread.

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 03:53PM

Babooshka wrote: »

Well the thing is, I'm reading and contributing to this since the beginning. I'd happily argue my thoughts and opinions if the repartee was anyway friendly or reasonable but I find the McCann haters style of posting very provocative, ramming their opinions down the neck of anyone who'll take it, seeking arguments with anyone, demanding proof the McCann's didn't do something that night. It's not something anyone can do. It's futile and goes around in circles. I know this, I am reasonable, so I won't go there, it's ended up with bannings. That's all. Enjoy your day.

Edit: Plus this is current affairs, the whole thing has gone back 13 years with all of these futile arguments, the arguments should really be in the true crime thread.

Tbh you don't sound reasonable at all attaching a label to those who hold a different opinion to you is not a display of reason, your post mentioning how long you are commenting on the disappearance comes across as incredibly arrogant.
Enjoy your day also.

Babooshka · 23-06-2020 03:55PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Tbh you don't sound reasonable at all attaching a label to those who hold a different opinion to you is not a display of reason, your post mentioning how long you are commenting on the disappearance comes across as incredibly arrogant.
Enjoy your day also.

And you are the typical "has to get the last word in" McCann hating type that I refuse to engage with in the main. Will do though.

Day Lewin · 23-06-2020 05:10PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There is no evidence she was abducted, that's a fact at present. Nothing got to do with reasonable or unreasonable.

Oh, circumstantial evidence counts.

The child is missing and there has been no ransom demand and no trace of a body.

Although family are always the most likely suspects when a child is missing, in this case the movements of the parents are documented in detail and there is neither motive nor opportunity.

Moreover, there were known paedophiles and burglars operating in the area at the time: and the child was unsupervised.

Looks more like abduction than anything else.

walshb · 23-06-2020 05:16PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There is no evidence she was abducted, that's a fact at present. Nothing got to do with reasonable or unreasonable.

This untrue. It's not a fact that she was not abducted.

She was removed from where she was. That is taken, abducted, or whatever other label one wants to put down.

You are clearly trying to imply that her parents killed her and disposed of the body, hence no abduction. This is rubbish.

This is a case of a child being abducted....anything else is silly conspiracy.

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 05:22PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

The child is missing and there has been no ransom demand and no trace of a body.

Agreed.

Looks more like abduction than anything else.

No evidence though.

walshb · 23-06-2020 05:23PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No evidence though.

What evidence do you need? The abductor to be caught?

Unless you think Maddy disappeared herself, and got lost?

I suppose that could be possible; though very unlikely.

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 05:25PM

walshb wrote: »

This untrue. It's not a fact that she was not abducted.

She was removed from where she was. That is taken, abducted, or whatever other label one wants to put down.

You are clearly trying to imply that her parents killed her and disposed of the body, hence no abduction. This is rubbish.

This is a case of a child being abducted....anything else is silly conspiracy.

Another poster has said this thread is going around in circles, to a degree they are right. Nothing of what you have said is anything other than your opinion. The reference to conspiracy to me just sounds like an unwillingness to accept any divergence from what you think happened.

walshb · 23-06-2020 05:35PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Another poster has said this thread is going around in circles, to a degree they are right. Nothing of what you have said is anything other than your opinion. The reference to conspiracy to me just sounds like an unwillingness to accept any divergence from what you think happened.

So get off the fence..

Tell us your view of what happened? Or what you think happened?

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 05:37PM

walshb wrote: »

So get off the fence..

Tell us your view of what happened? Or what you think happened?

Already did.

MonkieSocks · 23-06-2020 05:38PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There is no evidence she was abducted, that's a fact at present. Nothing got to do with reasonable or unreasonable.

In your opinion what happened to Madeleine?

Day Lewin · 23-06-2020 05:52PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

No evidence though.

This is quite true, there's no forensic.

But there are plenty of people in jail right now that were put there on circumstantial evidence alone: you don't always need forensic to make a case.

"--- The curious detail of the dog that barked in the night-time.
-- But the dog did not bark in the night!
That, Watson, is the curious detail ---".

(Conan Doyle, summarised by me)

Day Lewin · 23-06-2020 05:58PM

MonkieSocks wrote: »

In your opinion what happened to Madeleine?

It is my opinion that she was abducted for a sinister purpose, Heaven help her.

Of course it is only an opinion - there are no footprints, fingerprints, eye-witnesses or images, etc.

It is based on the circumstances, and the fact that the alternative possibilities appear even more unlikely, given the few known facts (lack of a family car) and the timeline - the window is very short between last confirmed sighting and the alarm being raised.

But this can't be proved one way or the other, without some kind of corroborative evidence, however faint, -- which is what I hope the German police have found.

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 06:00PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

This is quite true, there's no forensic.

But there are plenty of people in jail right now that were put there on circumstantial evidence alone: you don't always need forensic to make a case.

"--- The curious detail of the dog that barked in the night-time.
-- But the dog did not bark in the night!
That, Watson, is the curious detail ---".

(Conan Doyle, summarised by me)

Are you familiar with the burden of proof in a Portuguese or German court? I'm not so prehaps you can enlighten me as to what burden a prosecutor would need to demonstrate.

walshb · 23-06-2020 06:02PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Already did.

I missed it. There are many many many pages of posts.

Could you show me the post that gives your view on it?

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 06:04PM

walshb wrote: »

I missed it. There are many many many pages of posts.

There is and before I started commenting I read them all.
Could you show me the post that gives your view on it?

It's still there I didn't delete or edit it.

walshb · 23-06-2020 06:09PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's still there I didn't delete or edit it.

Ok, I didn’t think you deleted it.

I’ll leave it. Thought you might have posted it for me, or even given the page number..

The thread has thousands of posts..

I can only assume so that you are of the impression that the parents killed her..or are somehow directly involved in her death.

screamer · 23-06-2020 06:11PM

Anyone got any factual updates here today, rather than the I think, you think never ending posts?

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 06:23PM

screamer wrote: »

Anyone got any factual updates here today, rather than the I think, you think never ending posts?

The latest update is the latest 'suspect' is awaiting on whether he will get early release to be decided by a German court. Still nothing about the contents of the letters supposedly sent to the UK authorities.

Day Lewin · 23-06-2020 06:29PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Are you familiar with the burden of proof in a Portuguese or German court? I'm not so prehaps you can enlighten me as to what burden a prosecutor would need to demonstrate.

No, I am not. if there's anyone reading who does know, will they please inform us?

However, in British and Irish justice - and indeed, in natural justice, I believe - the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
If you accuse, you have to prove, - or at least demonstrate "beyond reasonable doubt" - -that the accused did in fact do whatever they were charged with.

It is extremely hard to prove that you didn't do something, especially when not officially charged with any crime, but only "accused" by vague unsupported rumours!

If there's no useful forensic, it comes down to an accumulation of circumstances, and a lack of contradictory facts.

WAW · 23-06-2020 06:30PM

briany wrote: »

Neglectful, yes, but not monstrously neglectful, or neglectful in a way grossly out of the ordinary. The other parents in the Tapas 7 were doing the same thing of leaving their children unattended back at the apartment while they were out for a meal across the pool while heading back for regular checks, and according to this thread and certain posters within it, that's bad enough, before you even get to the unlocked patio door. This leads me to suspect that it was probably a common thing done by many British holiday makers at that resort and other similar resorts where a place to eat and drink was located so nearby, not that anyone would admit to doing it now, of course.

No wish to rub salt in McCann's wounds or saying they are responsible for the daughter being snatched by a paedophile (potentially).

However, I still can't get over that anyone thinks such behaviour is anything but gross neglect. Night after night the lot of the parents were leaving babies and toddlers unattended. Regular checks? Not likely! And people say this is commonplace on holidays -by whom?

It beggars belief that anyone can.put this across as bit of unintended benign neglect.

We all want a bit of a break from small kids on holidays but why one parent or the granny who was on holidays with one of the couples couldn't take turns of minding the children each night is beyond me.

I find their whole holiday set up of bringing kids who spent their normal time at home in crèche only to put them on crèche on holidays bizzare anyway but they wouldn't be alone in.that - why have kids at all if you can only stand being with them for the minimum time but that is not a crime in the eyes of the law. But all of those parents on that holiday leaving tiny tots unattended is unfathomable.

I hope that behaviour was not and is not commonplace. I'm not a worrier but jaysus it's just playing with fire, apart from.beimg cruel and irresponsible.

Plumbthedepths · 23-06-2020 06:33PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

No, I am not. if there's anyone reading who does know, will they please inform us?

However, in British and Irish justice - and indeed, in natural justice, I believe - the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
If you accuse, you have to prove, - or at least demonstrate "beyond reasonable doubt" - -that the accused did in fact do whatever they were charged with.

It is extremely hard to prove that you didn't do something, especially when not officially charged with any crime, but only "accused" by vague unsupported rumours!

If there's no useful forensic, it comes down to an accumulation of circumstances, and a lack of contradictory facts.

So you have absolutely no idea what either the Portuguese or German legal system requires as a burden of proof but yet informed me about plenty of people in jail due to circumstantial evidence. There is quite a bit of American courtroom dialogue in your response tbh.

MonkieSocks · 23-06-2020 06:38PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

There is no evidence she was abducted, that's a fact at present. Nothing got to do with reasonable or unreasonable.

In your opinion what happened to Madeleine?

And if you have already stated your opinion, can you give the post number or a link to your said opinion

Day Lewin · 23-06-2020 07:27PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you have absolutely no idea what either the Portuguese or German legal system requires as a burden of proof but yet informed me about plenty of people in jail due to circumstantial evidence. There is quite a bit of American courtroom dialogue in your response tbh.

LOL I am Irish - but I have listened to a lot of podcasts!

The circumstantial evidence thing is British, and recent, I assure you.
Is there anyone on this thread who knows what is required under Portuguese or German law to bring a prosecution?

Genuine request. I'm quite serious.

However, for purposes of informal debate such as this board, natural justice and clarification by real facts would be welcome, and sufficient, even if no case were brought.

CityMan2020 · 23-06-2020 08:17PM

She died in the room
The only thing that needs to be proven is by who ? And where they disposed of the body .

Day Lewin · 23-06-2020 08:21PM

CityMan2020 wrote: »

She died in the room
The only thing that needs to be proven is by who ? And where they disposed of the body .

Respectfully...why so certain?

I mean, real reasons, not just wanting it to be true.

Madeleine McCann

Comments