Madeleine McCann

splinter65 wrote: »

The McCanns aren’t going to let anyone allege or imply that they harmed their daughter. Would you?

That's where the McCanns win out. Convincing everyone that they aren't murderers instead are just like you and me.

If your daughter was missing would you or wouldn't you answer detailed questioning. They aren't like you or me.

OwlsZat wrote: »

That's where the McCanns win out. Convincing everyone that they aren't murderers instead are just like you and me.

If your daughter was missing would you or wouldn't you answer detailed questioning. They aren't like you or me.

You have paid a top gun lawyer to represent you. He tells you not to answer their questions. You would of course, being 'normal', ignore the advice of the lawyer who knows how things work in that foreign country and just go for it.

If your idea of normal is insanity, that is.

You really should read up on the 'police' - a term I have to bite my tongue to get out. Convictions for perjury, clear evidence of beating and torturing female suspects extensively, getting let off that by a judge ruling a technicality applies. Late night assaults with iron bars, restraining orders. Full-on leaking of subjudice details and private correspondence to the press.

You literally couldn't make up that 5hit if you were a novelist writing about a corrupt small town police force in a South America, several thousand kilometers from the big smoke, because it would be too unbelievable.

OwlsZat wrote: »

A lawyer will only advice a client to answer "no comment" if there is a risk of implicating themselves in the crime. Why exactly do you think the lawyer was worried their client would implicate themselves?

If my child was abducted and I was made a suspect I would answer every single question to the Nth degree. So that my version of events could be corroborated by other evidence and I could be exonerated fully of the crime.

I'm not aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL questions that were put to them. Perhaps you can enlighten me with other examples.

You are being dishonest again.
She answered all the questions, several times over. Then after being made arguido, they asked the exact same questions again, in an affort to implicate her.
They already had all her answers, because she had already answered the questions.
She would have only been repeating herself and wasting valuable time. All they had to do was consult their notes of the prior interviews if they were that desperate to know.

But there is absolutely no point in debating this if you continue to misrepresent what happened because none of what you have said alludes to her/their guilt.

OwlsZat wrote: »

A lawyer will only advice a client to answer "no comment" if there is a risk of implicating themselves in the crime. Why exactly do you think the lawyer was worried their client would implicate themselves?

If my child was abducted and I was made a suspect I would answer every single question to the Nth degree. So that my version of events could be corroborated by other evidence and I could be exonerated fully of the crime.

I'm not aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL questions that were put to them. Perhaps you can enlighten me with other examples.

You have absolutely no idea between here and high heaven what you would do if your child was missing. Absolutely none. It’s impossible to project yourself into that situation.
You are fooling yourself to a ridiculous level if you imagine that you can. Why are you being so dishonest about this?

splinter65 wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea between here and high heaven what you would do if your child was missing. Absolutely none. It’s impossible to project yourself into that situation.
You are fooling yourself to a ridiculous level if you imagine that you can. Why are you being so dishonest about this?

With the greatest level of respect your talking absolute cobblelock. If I was in Kate's position and I was innocent I would have answered every question truthfully and exonerated myself. Trying to make out like that's not my honest position is deceitful of you. Because quite frankly you have zero idea how I would react in that position and making out otherwise is barefaced lying.

The only person who's position you can represent is your own. If you believe you would operate similarly under the same duress then that's your prerogative. Personally, I disagree with the strategy. I believe it's an admission of guilt. If you have nothing to hide. Don't hide it. That's my opinion and I'm free to have it. Making out like I'm lying, again will have you reported for trolling.

OwlsZat wrote: »

You are being dishonest SusieBlue. You have been many times and it's a deceitful way to misrepresent facts.

Can you answer the question instead of being deceptive? I'll repeat it so its clear. Are you aware of other high profile cases where an innocent person refused to answer ALL the questions that were put to them on the record while under suspicion of a crime?

I'm not being deceptive.
You specifically said she refused to answer any questions and that is complete fabrication on your part.
She had already answered them, so there were clearly no honourable intentions by them asking again.
They asked again in an effort to implicate her, not cause they were urgently trying to garner crucial information relevant to finding her daughter. Their sole focus was on pinning it on the McCanns at that point, the search operation was all but scaled down.

So I will repeat myself, because you aren't comprehending it: They already had all the answers.

Now if you would choose to ignore professional legal advice and answer despite this, that's your prerogative. I mean, I think that would be pretty stupid, but it would be your call.
But that doesn't mean that its the RIGHT thing or the ONLY thing to do, and it certainly doesn't allude to her guilt.

So until you acknowledge that fact, I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you about other cases, because all you're doing is moving the goalposts.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not being deceptive.
You specifically said she refused to answer any questions and that is complete fabrication on your part. She had already answered them, so there were clearly no honorable intentions by them asking again.

That's a ludicrous notion. if you are part of an investigation expect to get asked the same questions on repeat. People who deceive will contradict themselves. People who are answering truthfully will not.

Finding out if someone is answering truthfully or not is exceptionally honorable behavior. As already pointed out its very basic interrogation. Pretending to be offended by being asked again and refusing to co-operate is a simple smokescreen. There is no room for empathy in police work.

OwlsZat wrote: »

With the greatest level of respect your talking absolute cobblelock. If I was in Kate's position and I was innocent I would have answered every question truthfully and exonerated myself. Trying to make out like that's not my honest position is deceitful of you. Because quite frankly you have zero idea how I would react in that position and making out otherwise is barefaced lying.

The only person who's position you can represent is your own. If you believe you would operate similarly under the same duress then that's your prerogative. Personally, I disagree with the strategy. I believe it's an admission of guilt. If you have nothing to hide. Don't hide it. That's my opinion and I'm free to have it. Making out like I'm lying, again will have you reported for trolling.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you’d do if you were in “Kate's position” how could you possibly have? Even if you could imagine then who are you to say that what you’d do is the “normal” or “right” thing to do? Who appointed you the arbiter of correct behaviour?
The hypocrisy in this post is startling. But then I find hypocrisy in most of the ghouls who persist, nearly 12 years later, with their campaign of insane illogical unfounded hostility against the McCann family.
Look at what you’re saying. You’ve already declared that you would ignore the advice of your solicitor and any other advisers you had hired and answer the questions that you’ve already answered (twice) without any suspicion that there was an agenda against you (even though it’s now blatantly clear that that’s what’s happening) but now your saying in the same breath “ quite frankly you have zero idea how I would react in that position and making out otherwise is barefaced lying”.
So which is it?

Whats the story with the cadaver dogs smelling a body in their rental - dodge

TheW1zard wrote: »

Whats the story with the cadaver dogs smelling a body in their rental - dodge

The same story as with the multiple sniffer and SAR dogs the Portuguese had running through the resort, village and countryside, the day/s after Madeleine went missing - they didn't find anything.

SusieBlue wrote: »

They rented that car 3 weeks after she went missing. In order for the cadavar to be accurate, they would have had to hide her body for 3 weeks under the nose of the police and the worlds media and then dispose of said body without getting caught, in an unfamiliar location with no access to google maps.

Gerry's friends in the Illuminati contacted the UK Government and got Google to give him advance access to Google Maps in return for a deal on their London HQ.

I thought everyone knew that.

TheW1zard wrote: »

Yeah no thanks.
The dogs indicated a dead body was in the car thats a fact is it not

No it's not. The dogs barked, no one knows why.

TheW1zard wrote: »

Yeah no thanks.
The dogs indicated a dead body was in the car thats a fact is it not

Let me guess, you just watched the netflix documentary...
Read the thread, it will educate you.

sparrowcar wrote: »

Let me guess, you just watched the netflix documentary...
Read the thread, it will educate you.

Havent watched it. This stuff has been out there for years