Madeleine McCann

Tokyo · 15-07-2020 03:19PM

Mod: @cnocbui - don't post in the thread again.

limnam · 15-07-2020 03:34PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Er, I didn't interview them, UK social services did. What have Tusla got to do with a couple living in the UK?

Where they live for me doesn't come into it.

I'm surprised you need the government to tell you what is or isn't neglect. I would have thought we would be capable of figuring that out for ourselves.

Tusla are experts in that field right regardless of what country they're in.

If we accept that, we can accept their definition of what's deemed to be child neglect since apparently we need to be told.

Based on Tusla the experts in this field . Child neglect is.

"Neglect occurs when a child does not receive adequate care or supervision to the extent that the child is harmed physically or developmentally"

Box ticked.

Again. Why people try to defend this is very very concerning .

There's no argument it was neglect. You can argue the toss of why the UK didn't choose to prosecute them. But you cannot argue it's not neglect.

Well I guess some might. but you know yourself.

sxt · 15-07-2020 03:46PM

123

dark crystal wrote: »

Child is missing...hmmm.. Aliens? Invisibility? Anything is possible, I guess.

No there isn't.

They lied to the police about the circumstances in which they found the appartment, they lied to the police when they said someone tried to open the window from the outside which was not possible, they lied that someone tried to jemmy open the window. They lied when they said they didn't move the couch over the spot where one dog later detected evidence of blood and the cadaver dog detected scent of a corpse

Evidence of a corpse? Where is it?

The evidence of a blood hound detecting blood behind couch, the evidence of the cadaver dog getting the scent of a corpse in the same place being couch. Those two things put together

Why did the mcanns move the couch to cover the place where one dog detected evidence of blood, and the other dog detected evidence of a corpse

His phone puts him there on the night. Why so dismissive of the evidence regarding a convicted child molester, yet so willing to believe two parents on holiday did the unthinkable?

What evidence?Just because he was in the vicinity? There are probably dozens of pedos living in the area. Does that mean they are all guilty, because there were in the vicinity

dark crystal · 15-07-2020 04:07PM

limnam wrote: »

Where they live for me doesn't come into it.

I'm surprised you need the government to tell you what is or isn't neglect. I would have thought we would be capable of figuring that out for ourselves.

Tusla are experts in that field right regardless of what country they're in.

Not going to quote the whole wall of text there, however, if you think you know better than UK social services, more power to you.

Again, you'd be better off quoting the UK social services definitions, rather than an Irish agency that has nothing to do with the McCanns. Sure, why not quote the Russian SS code or the US SS code for that matter!

Neither the Portuguese, nor the UK Social services, who were in the position to deal with these parents, found there was anything to charge them with in relation to their parenting. So judge away all you like, it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans in the real world.

OwlsZat · 15-07-2020 04:48PM

Wow took a break from the thread because the Pro McCann evangelists were getting very high and mighty over their apparent victory. Sadly, it looks like the victory party has been cut short. Once again the only winner is the truth.

1. CB likely be released as there is no actual evidence against him.
2. The search down the wells wasn't instructed from Germany, you would wonder who sanctioned it.
3. The McCanns were told she was dead in a phantom letter that didn't get sent.

Make of it what you will. To me it looks like Germany antagonising two of the main suspects to see who might get rattled. The neglectful McCanns and the praying pedofiles namely CB but we are told they are littered across Portgual. I would love to hear the German prosecutor's off the record throughts. They certainly haven't laid all their cards out at this point.

Multipass · 15-07-2020 05:05PM

Looks like it was the Portuguese police bungling another case that leads to this situation where CB is able to appeal the rape and torture of the elderly lady. They seem to have a track record of bad practices.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-rape-case-22282059

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 05:21PM

Multipass wrote: »

Looks like it was the Portuguese police bungling another case that leads to this situation where CB is able to appeal the rape and torture of the elderly lady. They seem to have a track record of bad practices.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-rape-case-22282059

Was it bad practice not to allow the Met carry out a detailed and in depth investigation?

limnam · 15-07-2020 05:23PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Was it bad practice not to allow the Met carry out a detailed and in depth investigation?

It was the Portuguese who sent CB on to the Uk who sat on it for 13 years.

dark crystal · 15-07-2020 05:32PM

Multipass wrote: »

Looks like it was the Portuguese police bungling another case that leads to this situation where CB is able to appeal the rape and torture of the elderly lady. They seem to have a track record of bad practices.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-suspect-rape-case-22282059

Can you imagine that poor woman's distress if his appeal goes through and he walks free?

Jesus.

MonsterCookie · 15-07-2020 05:38PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Wow took a break from the thread because the Pro McCann evangelists were getting very high and mighty over their apparent victory. Sadly, it looks like the victory party has been cut short. Once again the only winner is the truth.

1. CB likely be released as there is no actual evidence against him.
2. The search down the wells wasn't instructed from Germany, you would wonder who sanctioned it.
3. The McCanns were told she was dead in a phantom letter that didn't get sent.

Make of it what you will. To me it looks like Germany antagonising two of the main suspects to see who might get rattled. The neglectful McCanns and the praying pedofiles namely CB but we are told they are littered across Portgual. I would love to hear the German prosecutor's off the record throughts. They certainly haven't laid all their cards out at this point.

not being smart, but do you have a source for this. the article i read earlier said it was possible he would be released, but a number of legal people in Germany were saying it was unlikely.

unfortunately, we don't have enough to go on so we're left feeding off tabloids which is never a good place to be.

I think there'll be more twists to come in this sorry tale - and i agree - would be great if we get Hans Christian sloshed over a few beers and see what he really thinks!

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 05:39PM

limnam wrote: »

It was the Portuguese who sent CB on to the Uk who sat on it for 13 years.

Colin Sutton refused to lead the Mets investigation into Maddies disappearance as he was advised he could not examine Kate or Gerry .

Day Lewin · 15-07-2020 05:48PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Colin Sutton refused to lead the Mets investigation into Maddies disappearance as he was advised he could not examine Kate or Gerry .

I'm really puzzled by this aspect.
If this is exactly what happened, how do we know it?
Advised by whom?
What reason was given?
It would seem very crazy to not question the parents in the case of any missing child - quite without prejudice.

I could see the Portuguese getting prickly about allowing another jurisdiction to conduct an investigation on their territory -

(After all, we've seen the French police trying to investigate the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case over here - and it didn't go down well)

- still doesn't really explain why the British police would be so sidelined in the case of crime against a British citizen.

I'm not much impressed by paranoid conspiracy theories and claims of "hush-up" and all that stuff -
being quite practical, there must be some real reason for this odd angle.

Does anyone here know of a snippet of real information that I may have missed?

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 06:03PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

I'm really puzzled by this aspect.
If this is exactly what happened, how do we know it?
Advised by whom?
What reason was given?
It would seem very crazy to not question the parents in the case of any missing child - quite without prejudice.

I could see the Portuguese getting prickly about allowing another jurisdiction to conduct an investigation on their territory -

(After all, we've seen the French police trying to investigate the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case over here - and it didn't go down well)

- still doesn't really explain why the British police would be so sidelined in the case of crime against a British citizen.

I'm not much impressed by paranoid conspiracy theories and claims of "hush-up" and all that stuff -
being quite practical, there must be some real reason for this odd angle.

Does anyone here know of a snippet of real information that I may have missed?

'How do we know?'
He gave an interview stating as much .

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html

ittakestwo · 15-07-2020 06:36PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Wow took a break from the thread because the Pro McCann evangelists were getting very high and mighty over their apparent victory. Sadly, it looks like the victory party has been cut short. Once again the only winner is the truth.

That is a very strange post to write. Your sarcasm in sadly obviously indicates you are happy that they have not found the culprit. But why? And then you say the only winner is the truth. What does this mean in the context? You know what the truth is and it's not CB?

Rock77 · 15-07-2020 07:02PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

'How do we know?'
He gave an interview stating as much .

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html

To be fair he says he was advised that were he to take the case he would be advised to lead it a certain way. This, he says was put to him by someone he refuses to name, in an unofficial capacity.

I’ve seen this posted a few times now and I think it’s important to state that never has the Mets position been to not investigate all avenue’s of this case, including the parents.

Multipass · 15-07-2020 07:03PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Can you imagine that poor woman's distress if his appeal goes through and he walks free?

Jesus.

Especially since he filmed it all, and they obviously have that.

splinter65 · 15-07-2020 07:12PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Wow took a break from the thread because the Pro McCann evangelists were getting very high and mighty over their apparent victory. Sadly, it looks like the victory party has been cut short. Once again the only winner is the truth.

1. CB likely be released as there is no actual evidence against him.
2. The search down the wells wasn't instructed from Germany, you would wonder who sanctioned it.
3. The McCanns were told she was dead in a phantom letter that didn't get sent.

Make of it what you will. To me it looks like Germany antagonising two of the main suspects to see who might get rattled. The neglectful McCanns and the praying pedofiles namely CB but we are told they are littered across Portgual. I would love to hear the German prosecutor's off the record throughts. They certainly haven't laid all their cards out at this point.

Leaves the thread at squeaky bum time for the tormentors of the McCanns, hides under the covers for a little while, peaks out and sees a headline on the Mail, jumps to conclusions (and not for the first time) wipes sweat from brow (whoa that was a near miss!!) re enters thread. Top class.

happyoutscan · 15-07-2020 07:25PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Leaves the thread at squeaky bum time for the tormentors of the McCanns, hides under the covers for a little while, peaks out and sees a headline on the Mail, jumps to conclusions (and not for the first time) wipes sweat from brow (whoa that was a near miss!!) re enters thread. Top class.

Mind boggling how people still believe the McCanns are the chief suspects. Beggars believe actually.

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 07:26PM

Rock77 wrote: »

To be fair he says he was advised that were he to take the case he would be advised to lead it a certain way. This, he says was put to him by someone he refuses to name, in an unofficial capacity.

I’ve seen this posted a few times now and I think it’s important to state that never has the Mets position been to not investigate all avenue’s of this case, including the parents.

He was advised by a senior colleague that he would not be allowed to carry out the investigation in the manner that he would wish.
Did you expect the Met to go public with a position that closed off certain routes?
An amusing willingness to dismiss anyone who does not go with the narrative.

limnam · 15-07-2020 07:37PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Colin Sutton refused to lead the Mets investigation into Maddies disappearance as he was advised he could not examine Kate or Gerry .

100%

But people are quick to blame the Prtotuguse on anything when in fact the brits did fck all about CB for 13 years. World class.

limnam · 15-07-2020 07:39PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

I'm really puzzled by this aspect.
If this is exactly what happened, how do we know it?
Advised by whom?
What reason was given?
It would seem very crazy to not question the parents in the case of any missing child - quite without prejudice.

I could see the Portuguese getting prickly about allowing another jurisdiction to conduct an investigation on their territory -

(After all, we've seen the French police trying to investigate the Sophie Toscan du Plantier case over here - and it didn't go down well)

- still doesn't really explain why the British police would be so sidelined in the case of crime against a British citizen.

I'm not much impressed by paranoid conspiracy theories and claims of "hush-up" and all that stuff -
being quite practical, there must be some real reason for this odd angle.

Does anyone here know of a snippet of real information that I may have missed?

Colin Sutton is not exactly Mr.Conspiracy theorist.

He had nothing to gain by stating what he said.

We either trust the met here, or we don't

If we do, what he said was true and what he was told was true.

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 07:43PM

limnam wrote: »

Colin Sutton is not exactly Mr.Conspiracy theorist.

He had nothing to gain by stating what he said.

We either trust the met here, or we don't

If we do, what he said was true and what he was told was true.

The lengths some will go to try and tarnish a respected Police Officer's
reputation because said officers unwillingness to toe the line is actually quite bizarre and distrubing.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/who-dci-colin-sutton-what-15621203

splinter65 · 15-07-2020 07:52PM

happyoutscan wrote: »

Mind boggling how people still believe the McCanns are the chief suspects. Beggars believe actually.

I think they know themselves that the McCanns are innocent. I’ve come across a few who were honest enough to admit that they got caught up in all the badger baiting at the start but as the years went by it became very clear that they’d had nothing to do with it. And fair play to them.
But you’ve a lot of people who just can’t admit that they were wrong.
You’ve the usual suspects for whom everything is an elaborate conspiracy.
Then you’ve more who just loved the finger pointing and the judging and the salacious rumor mongering. You’ll see them all the time at the school gate, men and women, sad bitter jealous people getting back in the car after ripping some other parent to shreds to head back to their miserable lives.

Day Lewin · 15-07-2020 07:54PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

'How do we know?'
He gave an interview stating as much .

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html

Thank you: that is extremely interesting.
One would have to wonder why the hands of an investigator should be tied in this way, surely a completely open mind is essential - and a search into ALL possibilities - really, you can't do good detective work any other way.

I'm bemused. The British police have investigated all sorts of cases, they wouldn't care about rank or status or publicity - and I wouldn't have thought they were easily intimidated, either.

It's very strange. I do wonder who the nameless "source" might be.

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 08:03PM

Day Lewin wrote: »

Thank you: that is extremely interesting.
One would have to wonder why the hands of an investigator should be tied in this way, surely a completely open mind is essential - and a search into ALL possibilities - really, you can't do good detective work any other way.

I'm bemused. The British police have investigated all sorts of cases, they wouldn't care about rank or status or publicity - and I wouldn't have thought they were easily intimidated, either.

It's very strange. I do wonder who the nameless "source" might be.

Its even odder that a very experienced officer such as DCI Sutton would refuse to lead such a high profile investigation unless there was truth in the advice he was given.It says enough to me about the man that he would not endanger the position or reputation of a colleague by naming them in the tabloids or media.

Rock77 · 15-07-2020 08:12PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

He was advised by a senior colleague that he would not be allowed to carry out the investigation in the manner that he would wish.
Did you expect the Met to go public with a position that closed off certain routes?
An amusing willingness to dismiss anyone who does not go with the narrative.

Firstly I was pointing out that many times it has been posted on this thread that the Met decided not to investigate the parents. This was never the Mets position (not officially anyway) the way it was being presented on this thread was slightly misleading so I decided to clarify.

No I would not expect the Met to go public with a position that closed off certain avenues.. but then I wouldn’t expect them to hold a position that closes off certain avenues..

You seriously leapt to quite the conclusion in your last sentence, I certainly did not dismiss anyone. All I did was give a bit of perspective to the claims that the Met decided they would not investigate the parents.

Perhaps he was told this by a senior source, maybe he was told this because this senior source didn’t want him on the case. Maybe there was no senior source and this guy made it up for his five minutes of fame.

How would the investigation go if it was being done the way he suggests? ‘We’ve found evidence that Kate and Gerry hid the child’s body’ ‘doesn’t matter, hide that evidence and look elsewhere to implicate someone else please’

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 08:17PM

Rock77 wrote: »

Firstly I was pointing out that many times it has been posted on this thread that the Met decided not to investigate the parents. This was never the Mets position (not officially anyway) the way it was being presented on this thread was slightly misleading so I decided to clarify.

No I would not expect the Met to go public with a position that closed off certain avenues.. but then I wouldn’t expect them to hold a position that closes off certain avenues..

You seriously leapt to quite the conclusion in your last sentence, I certainly did not dismiss anyone. All I did was give a bit of perspective to the claims that the Met decided they would not investigate the parents.

Perhaps he was told this by a senior source, maybe he was told this because this senior source didn’t want him on the case. Maybe there was no senior source and this guy made it up for his five minutes of fame.

How would the investigation go if it was being done the way he suggests? ‘We’ve found evidence that Kate and Gerry hid the child’s body’ ‘doesn’t matter, hide that evidence and look elsewhere to implicate someone else please’

Made it up for his five minutes of fame? No dismissal at all. My mistake

Rock77 · 15-07-2020 08:22PM

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Made it up for his five minutes of fame? No dismissal at all. My mistake

I see it’s pointless engaging with you anyway.. I clearly listed some possibilities that he may be telling the truth and some that he may not be. But don’t let that stop you from deciding what I think...

happyoutscan · 15-07-2020 09:32PM

Any chance the Met decided not to investigate the McCanns as they realised it would be a ridiculously stupid waste of time?

Plumbthedepths · 15-07-2020 09:41PM

Rock77 wrote: »

I see it’s pointless engaging with you anyway.. I clearly listed some possibilities that he may be telling the truth and some that he may not be. But don’t let that stop you from deciding what I think...

Get the doubt in though. No idea why you feel it's necessary to suggest he is lying. As I said dismiss anyone who goes against the narrative.
Bye.

Madeleine McCann

Comments