Madeleine McCann

Charmeleon wrote: »

To be honest they probably never even thought of having to write it down in law, Portugal is far more child centred than the UK. Leaving three children under four to fend for themselves while you eat and drink down the road is probably incomprehensible.

Sure,


Not just Portugal



For an innocent couple. They seem to be surrounded by people telling lies. Con men etc. I've never came across a case where there was so much deceit hanging around the innocent party



From dinners with pedophiles to murdered conmen.


Life is stranger than fiction for these two.

nthclare wrote: »

Lost a child ???

It's not that trivial.
I think there's more to it than losing a child.

How did I in any way imply it was trivial? What's trivial about losing a child?

If I lost my child I think my response and reaction wouldn't be as cold and Narcissistic​ as the Mcann s way of dealing with it.

Hopefully you'll never be in the position to discover how you would or wouldn't deal with it. There isn't a handbook.

nthclare wrote: »

That's a very shallow response, why compare the emotional response of losing a child to a handbook ?
That's downright narcissm

You are being deliberately obtuse.
I think you’re quite aware that the point being made that there is no standard response to losing a child, because everyone reacts to the trauma and stress from such an event differently.

Unless you have also had the misfortune of losing a child in similar circumstances it’s a bit pious of you to assume to know how you would or wouldn’t react.
When you have the luxury of being an onlooker it’s very easy to make judgments about how someone should or shouldn’t react to something, but when you are actually in the situation, it’s quite different.

I hope you are never in a position to find out what your response would be.

nthclare wrote: »

There's a click of ye here which is a minority,and you're all on the McCann s side in this debate.

There's plenty of evidence pointing towards the fact they could potentially be guilty of a crime.

Most people I know think the McCann's are not being honest and there's overwhelming evidence of the dogs finding the scent of cadaver in various places of which the McCann's have been.

Now it's quite easy to conclude that the evidence is substantially pointing in the right direction.

You do know that being of the same opinion does not automatically mean you are a clique dont you ?

nthclare wrote: »

There's a click of ye here which is a minority,and you're all on the McCann s side in this debate.

There's plenty of evidence pointing towards the fact they could potentially be guilty of a crime.

Most people I know think the McCann's are not being honest and there's overwhelming evidence of the dogs finding the scent of cadaver in various places of which the McCann's have been.

Now it's quite easy to conclude that the evidence is substantially pointing in the right direction.

And yet neither the Portuguese Police nor Scotland Yard have compiled enough evidence to convict them of anything, funny that.

The evidence literally points to nothing, that's why over 10 years later the case is still a mystery.

I have yet to see one compelling, realistic timeline that allows for the McCann's to kill their child (be it accidental or on purpose), come up with a plan, and dispose of her body and all evidence so well there's still no trace of the child over a decade later, all while acting normal and having dinner with their friends.

In order for the cadaver scent to be accurate, it would have to mean that Madeleine's body was in the boot of the car at least a fortnight after she went missing.
With the worlds media tailing them, huge amounts of stress, grief and pressure on them, and the fact that they were surrounded by the Portuguese police, how do you propose they managed to dispose of the body in those circumstances?

Analysis of alerts by the Central Division of Information Analysis - PJ who had their doubts about them.

Quote:
From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.


Forensics
Nowhere in the forensics report is it mentioned that blood was found. DNA was identified but it wasn't Madeleine's. Most of the samples had to be analysed using LCN techniques, and in most (relevant) cases the material of the sample couldn't be identified.

On the samples three DNA profiles were identified:
- A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card(286C/2007-CRL(12)).
- 286A/2007-CRL 5A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment ... In my opinion, Fernando Viegas could have contributed DNA to this result.
- 286/2007-CRL (17) Cement-glue [grouting] between the floor tiles identified as number 2...In my opinion, the major part of the profile matched that of Lino Henriques.

All three of the above mentioned people are (were at the time) still very much alive. Fernando Viegas and Lino Henriques are Portuguese Forensic experts.



More recently, in Amaral’s book, he states it’s Eddie who helped to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.

Amaral has got it wrong. There was no body. It was something that looked like it was a piece of a skull fragment. But it wasn't according to the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit

Quote:
In an email on April 8, the Oxford laboratory told Jersey police the fragment ‘ain’t bone’. It followed this up with a detailed letter on May 1, which Mr Harper claims not to have received, confirming the find was not bone but, in view of its curvature, more likely to be a seed casing or piece of coconut.

It is well known that they should not have let three children alone, I guess, they rue the day they did that, but their daughter is missing, and someone knows something out there,

cnocbui wrote: »

A female journalist fingered Murat.

Yep. He was first thrust to the forefront of the investigation after a journalist found his behaviour sufficiently odd to merit reporting to the Portuguese police. He seemed eager to assist in the search and the journo had him marked as Ian Huntley no2.
Robert also believes it was an inside job, Quote “have the police started looking at the people who work there? If not, they should."

Maybe Spanish Eyes or those who thanked her post could tell us.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If only the mcs had spent as much money on searching for their daughter as they did suing anyone who had a thought other than theirs.... (and paid for by the donations to the fund too I'd imagine, Carter Ruck lawyers don't come cheap).

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

It's not funny at all. Sadly many crimes are unsolved. It doesn't mean they are innocent.

And by the same token, it doesn’t make them guilty either.
Can’t have it both ways unfortunately.