Madeleine McCann

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 10:04AM

buttercups88 wrote: »

Its all so strange you'd think now in the year 2020 it wouldn't be too difficult for police forces to liase and work together. They probably would have been able to solve it years ago if they all sat down and shared all the information they had

Certain avenues of investigation were denied to the British police.

limnam · 14-07-2020 10:18AM

The daily mail is some paper for creating false dawns.

Banana Republic. · 14-07-2020 10:20AM

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, but the Portuguese press is clearly implying their detectives have also just found something, not just been given something by the Germans.

From the article you linked. It was also said in the earlier article about the well searches some days ago.

What could be left that would indicate she’s dead, has to be skeletal remains (grim I know) or clothes? but after 13 years in the same place I dunno surely these could of ended up miles and miles away, depends on where the wells lead to or if they were enclosed. If it did hair I say all the media attention spooked the abductor & disposed of the poor child. Absolutely grim to write that.

buttercups88 · 14-07-2020 10:27AM

Banana Republic. wrote: »

What could be left that would indicate she’s dead, has to be skeletal remains (grim I know) or clothes? but after 13 years in the same place I dunno surely these could of ended up miles and miles away, depends on where the wells lead to or if they were enclosed. If it did hair I say all the media attention spooked the abductor & disposed of the poor child. Absolutely grim to write that.

Well we know C.B videod the rape and torture of the American woman.

We know the germans found a USB containing images of children buried under his dogs body on his property.

It was around the same time the USB information was leaked that the prosecutor said they had evidence she was dead so it could be he filmed whatever he done to madeleine, but he can't be identified from the images. Also because its an image/video they cant say 100% it is Madeline without a body.

That is my interpretation of what has been said anyway.

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 10:35AM

buttercups88 wrote: »

Well we know C.B videod the rape and torture of the American woman.

We know the germans found a USB containing images of children buried under his dogs body on his property.

It was around the same time the USB information was leaked that the prosecutor said they had evidence she was dead so it could be he filmed whatever he done to madeleine, but he can't be identified from the images. Also because its an image/video they cant say 100% it is Madeline without a body.

That is my interpretation of what has been said anyway.

The German prosecutor said she was dead, then she may be alive. Sounds like he's clueless tbh.

buttercups88 · 14-07-2020 10:37AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The German prosecutor said she was dead, then she may be alive. Sounds like he's clueless tbh.

Well that would be because without a body or some kind of physical evidence they cant confirm the child in the images is Madeline.

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 10:39AM

buttercups88 wrote: »

Well that would be because without a body or some kind of physical evidence they cant confirm the child in the images is Madeline.

So why do you think he said they had evidence she was dead? Conflicting his claim she might be alive. Sounds like utter BS to me.

Banana Republic. · 14-07-2020 10:41AM

limnam wrote: »

The daily mail is some paper for creating false dawns.

The UK is riddled with them. There’s been so many false dawns in this case it’s untrue.

MonsterCookie · 14-07-2020 11:11AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So why do you think he said they had evidence she was dead? Conflicting his claim she might be alive. Sounds like utter BS to me.

seriously, you still think he's bull****ting?

imo any apparent conflict in what he said is more likely down to a combination of

the evidence being not strong enough to put the case beyond reasonable doubt (but still strong to convince the prosecutor)
possible nuance in language and translation

I posted a link to his english language interview with 60 minutes where he is quite clear when interviewed.

Day Lewin · 14-07-2020 11:16AM

Yeah but - newspapers want to sell the paper, right?
Some are more professional than others, shall we say - and some will pounce on the smallest scrap of recycled rumour and cook it up to look like a real fact.

I mean to say, the tabloid press is just not the same as the Sunday Times. (And I know which I'd be more prepared to trust!)

As regards the Alive-vs Dead remarks - that's not as much of a contradiction.
Example:
I mean, a relation of mine vanished (suspected suicide) and was eventually declared legally dead, years later.
He was depressed. His car was found near a sea cliff. His body was never found.
So, We have good reason to believe that he is dead. We cannot prove, forensically that he is actually dead - in theory, he could be alive. Nobody could swear on a Bible that he is actually, verifiably dead. No body, no forensic, no witness, nil.
But, you know, beyond all reasonable doubt, he probably is.
If a journalist was PRESSING me to PROVE he's dead, I would have to admit that he could be alive. But he's probably not!

Kind of the same!

TheW1zard · 14-07-2020 11:23AM

Well well well, all very interesting

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 11:25AM

MonsterCookie wrote: »

seriously, you still think he's bull****ting?

imo any apparent conflict in what he said is more likely down to a combination of
the evidence being not strong enough to put the case beyond reasonable doubt (but still strong to convince the prosecutor)

possible nuance in language and translation

I posted a link to his english language interview with 60 minutes where he is quite clear when interviewed.

I think it's bizarre someone in that position would make two conflicting statements. Prehaps he should have kept his mouth shut till solid evidence was available.

MonsterCookie · 14-07-2020 11:28AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I think it's bizarre someone in that position would make two conflicting statements. Prehaps he should have kept his mouth shut till solid evidence was available.

i think the move was quite calculated, and that the statements are not actually conflicting.

time will tell.

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 11:28AM

Day Lewin wrote: »

Yeah but - newspapers want to sell the paper, right?
Some are more professional than others, shall we say - and some will pounce on the smallest scrap of recycled rumour and cook it up to look like a real fact.

I mean to say, the tabloid press is just not the same as the Sunday Times. (And I know which I'd be more prepared to trust!)

As regards the Alive-vs Dead remarks - that's not as much of a contradiction.
Example:
I mean, a relation of mine vanished (suspected suicide) and was eventually declared legally dead, years later.
He was depressed. His car was found near a sea cliff. His body was never found.
So, We have good reason to believe that he is dead. We cannot prove, forensically that he is actually dead - in theory, he could be alive. Nobody could swear on a Bible that he is actually, verifiably dead. No body, no forensic, no witness, nil.
But, you know, beyond all reasonable doubt, he probably is.
If a journalist was PRESSING me to PROVE he's dead, I would have to admit that he could be alive. But he's probably not!

Kind of the same!

You seem to go out of your way to offer analogies, strange.
The prosecutor said they had evidence she was dead and then maybe she was alive. I'm baffled as to how your unfortunate relative bears any relation to what I have said.

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 11:29AM

MonsterCookie wrote: »

i think the move was quite calculated, and that the statements are not actually conflicting.

time will tell.

She's dead, she's not dead. Not conflicting?????

limnam · 14-07-2020 11:33AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

She's dead, she's not dead. Not conflicting?????

I guess it depends what fence you sit on...

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 11:45AM

limnam wrote: »

I guess it depends what fence you sit on...

Or twist oneself in knots to arrive at a position you've held since 2007.

MonsterCookie · 14-07-2020 11:56AM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

She's dead, she's not dead. Not conflicting?????

that's not what was said.

kanadams123 · 14-07-2020 12:18PM

limnam wrote: »

I guess it depends what fence you sit on...

Or maybe it's due to our serious Mental Illness that splinter has clinically diagnosed us with.

SusieBlue · 14-07-2020 12:25PM

It’s so clear that even if he gave a full confession and forensic evidence to implicate him was found, there would be some here who would still have doubts not find it credible.
Yet these same people pounce on any tiny suspicion, add arms and legs onto it and STILL push this as legitimate ‘evidence’ that the parents did it.

But yeah, I guess it depends which side of the fence you’re sitting on.

Day Lewin · 14-07-2020 12:28PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You seem to go out of your way to offer analogies, strange.
The prosecutor said they had evidence she was dead and then maybe she was alive. I'm baffled as to how your unfortunate relative bears any relation to what I have said.

Well, same thing, isn't it?

A person believed to be dead - strong indications.

Can't be PROVEN by solid forensic - therefore, could be alive.

No, I haven't just said that a person could be alive and dead at the same time. Like that German guy in the interview.
Just that a person almost certainly DEAD, theoretically could be alive until you actually gaze upon their corpse.
Unless you go in for deep philosophy, Schroedinger's cat and all that.

Kidchameleon · 14-07-2020 12:30PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s so clear that even if he gave a full confession and forensic evidence to implicate him was found, there would be some here who would still have doubts not find it credible.
Yet these same people pounce on any tiny suspicion, add arms and legs onto it and STILL push this as legitimate ‘evidence’ that the parents did it.

But yeah, I guess it depends which side of the fence you’re sitting on.

They have been repositioning themselves to "its was neglect" rather that "they did it" in anticipation of the case being solved. Hilarious and disgusting at the same time.

limnam · 14-07-2020 12:32PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

Well, same thing, isn't it?

A person believed to be dead - strong indications.

Can't be PROVEN by solid forensic - therefore, could be alive.

No, I haven't just said that a person could be alive and dead at the same time. Like that German guy in the interview.
Just that a person almost certainly DEAD, theoretically could be alive until you actually gaze upon their corpse.
Unless you go in for deep philosophy, Schroedinger's cat and all that.

I think it's a combination of all the messing that's causing a problem.

The conflicting statements.

The sending of a letter that maybe wasn't sent or maybe sent to someone else that was to pass it on but they never got.

Other forces out of nowhere checking wells. Germans know nothing about it.

It's been a circus for 13 years and unfortunately the circus continues.

The 3 forces should sit down and align wtf is going on and work together

limnam · 14-07-2020 12:33PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They have been repositioning themselves to "its was neglect" rather that "they did it" in anticipation of the case being solved. Hilarious and disgusting at the same time.

who's "they" ?

Plumbthedepths · 14-07-2020 12:36PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

Well, same thing, isn't it?

A person believed to be dead - strong indications.

Can't be PROVEN by solid forensic - therefore, could be alive.

No, I haven't just said that a person could be alive and dead at the same time. Like that German guy in the interview.
Just that a person almost certainly DEAD, theoretically could be alive until you actually gaze upon their corpse.
Unless you go in for deep philosophy, Schroedinger's cat and all that.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/german-prosecutors-say-they-have-concrete-evidence-madeleine-mccann-is-dead/

splinter65 · 14-07-2020 12:51PM

limnam wrote: »

The daily mail is some paper for creating false dawns.

Yes it’s difficult days for the people who have stuck to their guns for 13 years about the McCanns being guilty of hiding the death of their own child and disposing of her body. The mounting,nagging suggestion that this German man will be found to have been the perpetrator all along. The story just won’t go away, will it?
Imagine persisting in insisting that, despite there being no evidence, despite there being no motive and despite there being no opportunity that these parents are guilty.
I mean, not one of these people can even begin to give an even barely credible timeline for this killing and hiding and disposal. Because that’s not what actually happened.
So to be shown up for a whacky conspiracy theorist with a penchant for persecuting bereaved parents on line will be a bit embarrassing to say the least.
Still, I suppose they’ll save face by creating a whole new scenario whereby the McCanns arranged for the German to take Maddie for some wild and whacky reason (Freemasons, paedophlie ring...who knows) and stick to that.
Anything is better then admitting that you were wrong, and that you’re not, after all, the best armchair detective in the world.

limnam · 14-07-2020 12:56PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes it’s difficult days for the people who have stuck to their guns for 13 years about the McCanns being guilty of hiding the death of their own child and disposing of her body. The mounting,nagging suggestion that this German man will be found to have been the perpetrator all along. The story just won’t go away, will it?
Imagine persisting in insisting that, despite there being no evidence, despite there being no motive and despite there being no opportunity that these parents are guilty.
I mean, not one of these people can even begin to give an even barely credible timeline for this killing and hiding and disposal. Because that’s not what actually happened.
So to be shown up for a whacky conspiracy theorist with a penchant for persecuting bereaved parents on line will be a bit embarrassing to say the least.
Still, I suppose they’ll save face by creating a whole new scenario whereby the McCanns arranged for the German to take Maddie for some wild and whacky reason (Freemasons, paedophlie ring...who knows) and stick to that.
Anything is better then admitting that you were wrong, and that you’re not, after all, the best armchair detective in the world.

Not sure why you're directing that at me.

I've never come up with any theory conspiracy or otherwise.

The only position I've ever held is I've no clue what happened.
As you've said, all I ever mention is their neglect, but apparently that's a new line that's been brought up because of this new evidence.

Banana Republic. · 14-07-2020 12:56PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes it’s difficult days for the people who have stuck to their guns for 13 years about the McCanns being guilty of hiding the death of their own child and disposing of her body. The mounting,nagging suggestion that this German man will be found to have been the perpetrator all along. The story just won’t go away, will it?
Imagine persisting in insisting that, despite there being no evidence, despite there being no motive and despite there being no opportunity that these parents are guilty.
I mean, not one of these people can even begin to give an even barely credible timeline for this killing and hiding and disposal. Because that’s not what actually happened.
So to be shown up for a whacky conspiracy theorist with a penchant for persecuting bereaved parents on line will be a bit embarrassing to say the least.
Still, I suppose they’ll save face by creating a whole new scenario whereby the McCanns arranged for the German to take Maddie for some wild and whacky reason (Freemasons, paedophlie ring...who knows) and stick to that.
Anything is better then admitting that you were wrong, and that you’re not, after all, the best armchair detective in the world.

If it didn’t cross your mind at the start that the parents could be suspects then you are lying to yourself. The first rule is to always suspect those closest as they know the timelines, there was way too much inconsistency from all their stories not to arouse suspicion. This case is also far from solved in any way shape or form. So nobody is right, either way Madeline is the one suffering the most.

cnocbui · 14-07-2020 12:58PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The German prosecutor said she was dead, then she may be alive. Sounds like he's clueless tbh.

Actually what he did was row back on the original claim slightly and said they didn't have biological proof of death so couldn't prove it. I don't think they said they thought she could still be alive, other than from the view of not being able to conclusively prove otherwise..

MonsterCookie · 14-07-2020 01:13PM

cnocbui wrote: »

Actually what he did was row back on the original claim slightly and said they didn't have biological proof of death so couldn't prove it. I don't think they said they thought she could still be alive, other than from the view of not being able to conclusively prove otherwise..

i just think to write it off as bizarre or BS is naive. time will tell whether they can build the case sufficiently (or indeed if there is no case)...would be very surprised if it gets resolved quickly.

Madeleine McCann

Comments