A rush to judgement?

[philamena]

http://pix01.revsci.net/E05510/a3/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/noscript.gif Worth the read---possibly worth a discussion.
Article written by Father Jonathan Morris

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297598,00.html

SNIP

Rushing to Judgment about Madeleine McCann's Disappearance


Portuguese police have resumed search efforts for Madeleine McCann.
This is good news for Kate and Gerry McCann who had been named suspects in the alleged death of their 5-year-old daughter. The McCanns have defended their innocence vigorously and have pleaded with police not to abandon the search for Madeleine.
The Times of London reports today that a source close to the Portuguese public prosecutor, Luis Bilro Verao, says the case against the McCanns has come to an “impasse.”
Little consolation, I imagine, for Kate and Gerry. They know their names will never be cleared until Madeleine is found — doubt will always linger. It’s the way we’re wired.
Do you remember the moment you heard the news about their alleged involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance?

[philamena]

Nice to see that only 1 view point is being considered. FWIW-This is an excellent article written by a priest. I find it's good to read and consider all information and views when learning and discussing a case.

[IrishMist]

Well, you certainly know my opinion on this! :)

I do think there's been a rush to judgment. I'm really hoping something comes of these two sightings of her in Morocco. Even though it's been a while ago now, I've had this hope that maybe, just maybe she's still alive.

[southcitymom]

Well, you certainly know my opinion on this! :)

I do think there's been a rush to judgment. I'm really hoping something comes of these two sightings of her in Morocco. Even though it's been a while ago now, I've had this hope that maybe, just maybe she's still alive.


I hope too, Irish, but my gut tells me we probably won't see her alive again.

[IrishMist]

I hope too, Irish, but my gut tells me we probably won't see her alive again.

That's how I've been feeling too, SCM. But, just for today, I have a glimmer of hope.

Chances are that you are right. :(

[colomom]

Nice to see that only view point is being considered.

Am I the only one confused?

[Shazza]

Am I the only one confused?
Lost me too Colomom.

[Rino]

Am I the only one confused?
Nope :)

[philamena]

Doesn't surprise me........ya'll have a good evening.

[philamena]

Well, you certainly know my opinion on this! :)

I do think there's been a rush to judgment. I'm really hoping something comes of these two sightings of her in Morocco. Even though it's been a while ago now, I've had this hope that maybe, just maybe she's still alive.

I do IrishMist.:blowkiss:

[Brefie]

Doesn't surprise me........ya'll have a good evening.

Hi philamena....

I think that there has been a rush to judgment. I think that lots of people cannot get past the fact that they showed terrible judgment in leaving those children alone. I think some of those people can say it don't make them murderers, but can't actually feel it.That's not a dig at anyone, I think it's human nature.

[IrishMist]

Hi philamena....

I think that there has been a rush to judgment. I think that lots of people cannot get past the fact that they showed terrible judgment in leaving those children alone. I think some of those people can say it don't make them murderers, but can't actually feel it.That's not a dig at anyone, I think it's human nature.

I couldn't agree more, Brefie. It seems to be at the core for a lot of the belief that they killed their daughter, IMO.

[KOOL LOOK]

I couldn't agree more, Brefie. It seems to be at the core for a lot of the belief that they killed their daughter, IMO.

Not for me, my thing with the parents is Kate's not in a coma? Weak, dehydrated, suffering, irritable, inconsolable, those kinds of things. Cry me a river.

[IrishMist]

Not for me, my thing with the parents is Kate's not in a coma? Weak, dehydrated, suffering, irritable, inconsolable, those kinds of things. Cry me a river.

Kool, maybe it's because I'm so tired tonight that I shouldn't even be reading on here let alone attempting to post, but I don't get this?

Are you saying you think they are guilty because they are coping?

[Brefie]

Not for me, my thing with the parents is Kate's not in a coma? Weak, dehydrated, suffering, irritable, inconsolable, those kinds of things. Cry me a river.

I am not following.......

[philamena]

Hi philamena....

I think that there has been a rush to judgment. I think that lots of people cannot get past the fact that they showed terrible judgment in leaving those children alone. I think some of those people can say it don't make them murderers, but can't actually feel it.That's not a dig at anyone, I think it's human nature.

I couldn't agree more Brefie.
If I live to be 100 I will never understand anyone leaving 3 children alone.

[KOOL LOOK]

Kool, maybe it's because I'm so tired tonight that I shouldn't even be reading on here let alone attempting to post, but I don't get this?

Are you saying you think they are guilty because they are coping?

I'm saying their behavior to me, isn't that of innocent parents. All of their actions before during and after lead me to believe their involved with her disappearance. Everything. They personally haven't been able to convince me otherwise. Setting aside others opinions, leaks etc... Just the McCanns themselves haven't convinced me otherwise.

My instinct and intuition has me feeling this way, nothing else.

[Jolynna]

Not for me, my thing with the parents is Kate's not in a coma? Weak, dehydrated, suffering, irritable, inconsolable, those kinds of things. Cry me a river.

Maybe they are in shock.

I didn't cry at my father's funeral. Neither did my mother. It didn't seem real. Sometimes I think people mentally remove themselves because the pain of what is happening is so great.

I admit that the parents leaving Madeline alone has me leaning toward their being involved. But, until facts are sorted from fiction, I have to be on the fence.

moo

[IrishMist]

I'm saying their behavior to me, isn't that of innocent parents. All of their actions before during and after lead me to believe their involved with her disappearance. Everything. They personally haven't been able to convince me otherwise. Setting aside others opinions, leaks etc... Just the McCanns themselves haven't convinced me otherwise.

My instinct and intuition has me feeling this way, nothing else.

Thanks for explaining, I understand what you meant now.

[Shazza]

Until this case is solved all have to go on is our gut feeling, and not everyone thinks the same, so there are going to be people for the McCanns and people against them, we all come to different conclusions from what we read and the actions we see. My gut feeling is the MCanns were involved in Madelaines disappearance, but we have not enough evidence at this stage to prove it, and also to not prove their innocence. I dont think we have all the information that the LE have, so we play the waiting game, while the LE try and solve this horrid crime.

[Brefie]

Until this case is solved all have to go on is our gut feeling, and not everyone thinks the same, so there are going to be people for the McCanns and people against them, we all come to different conclusions from what we read and the actions we see. My gut feeling is the MCanns were involved in Madelaines disappearance, but we have not enough evidence at this stage to prove it, and also to not prove their innocence. I dont think we have all the information that the LE have, so we play the waiting game, while the LE try and solve this horrid crime.

I think what we should remember, is that just b/c people like MOI think they are innocent of killing and disposing of their child, does not make me pro McCann. Then we would have to assume I am not condemning them for leaving their kids alone, which I do and have pointed out several times.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Shazza]

I think what we should remember, is that just b/c people like MOI think they are innocent of killing and disposing of their child, does not make me pro McCann. Then we would have to assume I am not condemning them for leaving their kids alone, which I do and have pointed out several times.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I personally did not say you were pro cann, or assume you are not condemning the McCanns for leaving their children alone, I am stating that there are many out there who are, and we all percieve things differently, I have no problem with term innocent until proved guilty, at this stage noone has been found guilty, but I do not think the McCanns are innocent, it is just my thoughts and opinion, doesnt mean I am right.

[ceeaura]

I don't think I have rushed to judgement at all.I do think the parents had something to do with Madeleine going missing.

With that said I don't harp on that here.I do read everyones post with an open mind.I also like reading other peoples thoughts,feelings and theories.I for one am glad we have people who think guilty,not guilty and fence sitters here who post.It gets me thinking "what if".Maybe I will read someones thoughts and feelings and get back on the fence or believe they are not guilty.(I really wish I could feel they were not guilty)

One thing I will not do is bash anyone here or make snide comments to other people for posting their thoughts or feelings.Past couple of weeks we have seen some mocking/baiting going on and that is really sad.This is a very sad and heartbreaking situation with Madeleine,no matter which way it goes.We should try and respect each other more.

Brefie,
Not saying this to offend.This is just my opinion :) Innocent until proven guilty....in the court of law.I am not the court nor on the jury so If I think guilty , my opinion does not count for nothing at all.Just my opinion which I state on a discussion board.

If I saw them walking down the street I am not going to go shouting guilty at them and throw veggies either.I have not bashed them at all.

Sorry all I am rambling am tired.So hope I made sense :p

[Salem]

Ceeaura - you made complete sense to me and I couldn't agree more.

On another point - I do continue to harp on the fact that the McCanns left three babies unattended. I won't apologize for that. It completely blows my mind that two doctors could do such a thing.

But that is not why I think they are involved in Maddie's disappearance. If it would have been the only night the Mc's left them unattended, then I might be more suspicious of that fact. However, given that they apparently did it every night after their first night on holiday, I don't think it means anything more than that they were very irresponsible.

I believe they are involved because of their demeanor during the very first interview they did with that British reporter. I believe they are involved because of the way they went immediately to lawyers and "campaign financing" and how those things took over, and they never went back to the "find maddie" until they were named suspects. I believe they are involved because none of the stories matched up, none of the timelines match, and they could never get the distance to the Tapas bar right. I believe they are involved because Kate left the twins alone after finding Maddie gone. I believe they are involved because they claimed the windows and shutters were tampered with, and the police, including some British specialist totally disclaimed such a possibility.

Now, I will allow that all of those things are debatable on several different fronts and that's okay. I debate them with myself.... I really want Maddie to be found alive and unharmed. To that end, I search the news every day for something other than the gross media BS that is being put out right now. I pray that the PLE will continue with searches for both a live Maddie and, well, you know........

I also read here everyday, and post occasionally for both news, opinions, thoughts and just sharing.

Salem

[Brefie]

I personally did not say you were pro cann, or assume you are not condemning the McCanns for leaving their children alone, I am stating that there are many out there who are, and we all percieve things differently, I have no problem with term innocent until proved guilty, at this stage noone has been found guilty, but I do not think the McCanns are innocent, it is just my thoughts and opinion, doesnt mean I am right.

No, you did not. Sorry if it seemed like I thought you had said that.

[Brefie]

I don't think I have rushed to judgement at all.I do think the parents had something to do with Madeleine going missing.

With that said I don't harp on that here.I do read everyones post with an open mind.I also like reading other peoples thoughts,feelings and theories.I for one am glad we have people who think guilty,not guilty and fence sitters here who post.It gets me thinking "what if".Maybe I will read someones thoughts and feelings and get back on the fence or believe they are not guilty.(I really wish I could feel they were not guilty)

One thing I will not do is bash anyone here or make snide comments to other people for posting their thoughts or feelings.Past couple of weeks we have seen some mocking/baiting going on and that is really sad.This is a very sad and heartbreaking situation with Madeleine,no matter which way it goes.We should try and respect each other more.

Brefie,
Not saying this to offend.This is just my opinion :) Innocent until proven guilty....in the court of law.I am not the court nor on the jury so If I think guilty , my opinion does not count for nothing at all.Just my opinion which I state on a discussion board.

If I saw them walking down the street I am not going to go shouting guilty at them and throw veggies either.I have not bashed them at all.

Sorry all I am rambling am tired.So hope I made sense :p

You did. And you're right, on this board anyone's opinion goes.

[Dr. Creepin]

Sometimes I think I've been duped into blaming the McCann's, it would take the heat off the real perpetrator, but then, 80% of people believe they have something to hide, namely, a body. We can't all be wrong... I'd like to think it's the other 20% who are gullible morons. Then I remind myself that I have suspected this couple from day one, long before the media got into gear and none of the "evidence" I have gathered comes from tabloid journalists, but from the McCann's own mouths. For example, Kate said, "Police didn't want a murder in Portugal." Who said anything about murder? Only Kate! Gerry said on the Sky interview, "We did grieve, we have grieved." (Past tense) Meaning, they are over it! They have contradicted themselves so many times and been uncooperative during questioning. I believe detectives, who have all the facts, have a very clear picture of what happened to Madeleine that evening, they just can't prove it conclusively. The only thing which will convince me otherwise, is if the child turns up.

[Shazza]

No, you did not. Sorry if it seemed like I thought you had said that.
Hey this is what this forum is about, bouncing of each other, putting different ideas and opinions out there for discussion, as I read in another thread, we posters shouldnt critize each other, if you dont agree, just state what you think and leave it at that, we are all trying to figure out what could have happened to Madelaine, I truly hope my opinion is wrong, I would be the first to apologise, but we dont know yet as to what happened to Madelaine, until then we should all work together and maybe figure out what may have happened, we are all from various parts of the world and I have learnt a lot about different laws in different parts of the world, I pretty much thought the Australian laws were the same world wide, its been a learning curve for me, but a sad one and I do get emotional, but how can you help it when you see that beautiful smiling face of Madelaine, she just melts your heart.

[narlacat]

http://pix01.revsci.net/E05510/a3/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/noscript.gif Worth the read---possibly worth a discussion.
Article written by Father Jonathan Morris

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297598,00.html

SNIP

Rushing to Judgment about Madeleine McCann's Disappearance


Portuguese police have resumed search efforts for Madeleine McCann.
This is good news for Kate and Gerry McCann who had been named suspects in the alleged death of their 5-year-old daughter. The McCanns have defended their innocence vigorously and have pleaded with police not to abandon the search for Madeleine.
The Times of London reports today that a source close to the Portuguese public prosecutor, Luis Bilro Verao, says the case against the McCanns has come to an “impasse.”
Little consolation, I imagine, for Kate and Gerry. They know their names will never be cleared until Madeleine is found — doubt will always linger. It’s the way we’re wired.
Do you remember the moment you heard the news about their alleged involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance?

There are still people that believe Lindy Chamberlain killed her baby- when in reality she was cleared and a dingo took her baby.
She was persecuted by the media who labelled her insensitive and uncaring about what happened to Azaria, people hated her because she didn't seem to be crying enough and showing enough grief.
They found blood in the boot of their car- which 6 years later proved to be car fluid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

The similarities between these two couples are startling, both devout Christians, both were on holiday when their child disappeared and both had 2 other children.
More at link.

[Shazza]

There are still people that believe Lindy Chamberlain killed her baby- when in reality she was cleared and a dingo took her baby.
She was persecuted by the media who labelled her insensitive and uncaring about what happened to Azaria, people hated her because she didn't seem to be crying enough and showing enough grief.
They found blood in the boot of their car- which 6 years later proved to be car fluid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

The similarities between these two couples are startling, both devout Christians, both were on holiday when their child disappeared and both had 2 other children.
More at link.
IMO the Lindy Chamberlain case is totally different from the McCann case, as you said the similarities are they have 2 other children and their child went missing whilst on holiday.

[narlacat]

IMO the Lindy Chamberlain case is totally different from the McCann case, as you said the similarities are they have 2 other children and their child went missing whilst on holiday.

How do you think they are totally different?- what are some differences in your opinion?



Lindy sees the similarites:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22385670-5006016,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22385670-5006016,00.html)

[Shazza]

How do you think they are totally different?- what are some differences in your opinion?



Lindy sees the similarites:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22385670-5006016,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22385670-5006016,00.html)
Read the Madelaine forum, its all there, I dont have the time.

[narlacat]

Read the Madelaine forum, its all there, I dont have the time.

You stated - "IMO the Lindy Chamberlain case is totally different from the McCann case"

I am curious to how they are different as I only see the similarites.

[KOOL LOOK]

Read the Madelaine forum, its all there, I dont have the time.


It's been a long time since I was familiar with the Lindy case, but you are right, naming the only similarities. Two families on vacation, two children turned up missing. To me that's where the similarities end.

No doubt, the police did a terrible job in the Dingo case, that does happen sometimes, we all know that. Sad, dishonorable, the whole nine yards. Thank goodness she was cleared, and the case was solved. But, fairly to the police, the dis-honorable man that found the dingo with the child caused this case to pivot in the direction it did. Had he told the truth, this story would have a whole different story line and content.

Maddy was persistently left in harms way by the parents, night after night. Even after their own daughters protests, employees and guests of the people involved in the actual real time events as they were unfolding daily.

There has been no rush to judgement in this case at all. No, not any. The police investigated and continue to investigate the very persons they should be investigating until they can prove their not involved. They haven't been ruled out. They could have taken lie detectors. They've not been forth coming completely with police.

The parents had all reasons to cover up their actions, even if their not guilty of her disappearance. They knew their choices of leaving the kids alone we be in question immediately upon something occurring to the children after being left alone and unprotected.

They should be investigated thoroughly just as anyone else who comes onto the radar screen. All leads should be investigated. The parents are the police and publics best lead to date. Stay on the trail. Til the trail goes cold, that's basic police 101.

[Shazza]

You stated - "IMO the Lindy Chamberlain case is totally different from the McCann case"

I am curious to how they are different as I only see the similarites.
The answer is in you statement, you only see the similarites, which means being similar, a point, feature. etc in which things are similar.
I see differences, such as locations, the McCanns leaving their children alone, McCanns lies, changing their statements, at least Lindy Chamberlains story was the same throughout, whereas the McCanns change theirs to suit themselves, the Chamberlains preferred to stay out of the limelight, they did not bring attention upon themselves, they did not jetset around the world, there are so many differences in my opinion, but as I stated before I dont have time to explain every difference as I would be here forever.

[SleuthMom]

Rush to judgment? I don't think so. Mr. and Mrs. Mc Cann were named arguidos (official suspects) in their daughter's disappearance. This is not our imagination but the police naming them as such. Now, if a lot of posters do not trust the police for this or that then it does not make any sense. It is the police who gathers the evidence and then a Judge who lays charged IF there is enough evidence.

We do not know exactly what the police has BUT we know there IS enough evidence to have made them official suspects in the first place which means, 100% innocence does not seem to be there at the moment.

So based on these facts and others, to think the Mc Canns are involved in Maddie's disappearance it is not a rush in judgment.

[csds703]

How do you think they are totally different?- what are some differences in your opinion?



Lindy sees the similarites:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22385670-5006016,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22385670-5006016,00.html)


THERE are some uncanny and what may soon become disturbing similarities between the Madeleine McCann case and what happened in Australia 27 years ago.
Then, of course, we had our own mystery -- the disappearance of Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain. Then, too, we had the charging of her mother, Lindy, with murder and her father, Michael, with being an accessory to that murder.
The similarities to the McCann case are eerie: the Chamberlains were convicted after what was thought to be a baby's blood was found in a car. The McCanns could face a similar ordeal. In both cases police forces faced enormous pressure to make an arrest. With both Azaria and Maddy, there was no motive, no weapon, no body and no confession -- four of the critical elements in any murder case.
Those are the obvious similarities and, as with Azaria, it is becoming increasingly certain that Madeleine will never be found. There are also uncomfortable comparisons with the death of JonBenet Ramsay, whose parents became the chief suspects after her unsolved murder in the US in 1996.
Madeleine's parents have been accused though, at the time of writing, not yet formally charged. It was the same soon after that cold August night at Ayers Rock in 1980. The couple had not been charged then, but they stood accused -- by the police -- when, without checking, they accepted the word of a caller that Azaria meant "sacrifice in the wilderness" and, on putting down the phone, turned to the media and said: "We've got a murder on our hands."
That, as we now know, was a horrendous mistake.
Even so, as of yesterday, other similarities have begun to surface. The mob, as it did here more than 20 years ago, is beginning to bay in judgment. And if the pattern persists, we could again witness more of the ugly side of humanity as we did when:

[csds703]

Rush to judgment? I don't think so. Mr. and Mrs. Mc Cann were named arguidos (official suspects) in their daughter's disappearance. This is not our imagination but the police naming them as such. Now, if a lot of posters do not trust the police for this or that then it does not make any sense. It is the police who gathers the evidence and then a Judge who lays charged IF there is enough evidence.

We do not know exactly what the police has BUT we know there IS enough evidence to have made them official suspects in the first place which means, 100% innocence does not seem to be there at the moment.

So based on these facts and others, to think the Mc Canns are involved in Maddie's disappearance it is not a rush in judgment.


Actually we don't know any of this. We know it's a botched police investigation with alot of leaks to the press.
While the mob mentality is focusing only on the McCann's the real truth is slipping away.

[Shazza]

Actually we don't know any of this. We know it's a botched police investigation with alot of leaks to the press.
While the mob mentality is focusing only on the McCann's the real truth is slipping away.
The real truth is in the hands of the prosecutor csds, none of us know what they have yet, hopefully there will be a trial and we will find out the truth.

[csds703]

The real truth is in the hands of the prosecutor csds, none of us know what they have yet, hopefully there will be a trial and we will find out the truth.

That's what we all hope for.

[KOOL LOOK]

Actually we don't know any of this. We know it's a botched police investigation with alot of leaks to the press.
While the mob mentality is focusing only on the McCann's the real truth is slipping away.

I don't see how this statement isn't anything but a rush to judgement. How can you say the police investigation is botched? Becuase someone leaked some information that doesn't mean it's botched. We don't even know if it's true leaks, no sources have been named or charged, just innuendo. The leaks could also be from the other side. We don't know.

Giving the public information isn't botching anything, it's what's done in most cases to a degree in order to get help from the public. If any, the police should be more forth coming in this investigation, we've seen many cases solved due to this very thing.

Police investigations, forensics have come so far in what they were that many years ago in the Chamberlain case. Cameras, dna, the dogs, they don't lie and warp or slant facts and evidence. They tell the story. There is also witnesses to the comings and goings leading up to and after the events of this case that can be documented. For example, just how many bottles of wine was consumed that fateful night. There will be receipts for what they drank, ate, what time the food and beverages were charged on their credit cards, rooms bills.

The police have done what they felt was right from the beginning. I'ts easy to sit back and say what they should have done. Hindsight is always better and more informed after the fact. The only one that had the upper hand at the onset of this investigation was the perp, blaming the police is a horrible trend in this world that's become acceptable due to defence lawyers trying to get guilty clients off.

There's always exceptions to where police have went after the wrong person, but those cases have been brought to the attention of the public, re-investigated and many many falsely prosecuted people have been set free.
Police only have so much they can do to help fight and solve crime. Finally the Chamberlain case was completely solved and righted for the innocent. Thank goodness this isn't the norm. We learn from mistakes like these. We also learn over time the actual involvement the very ones that should love children are more likely the perps than strangers, which is something you wouldn't have convinced the public of 30 years ago either. Especially the mother.

The criminals are the bad people, not police.

[csds703]

I don't see how this statement isn't anything but a rush to judgement. How can you say the police investigation is botched? Becuase someone leaked some information that doesn't mean it's botched. We don't even know if it's true leaks, no sources have been named or charged, just innuendo. The leaks could also be from the other side. We don't know.

Giving the public information isn't botching anything, it's what's done in most cases to a degree in order to get help from the public. If any, the police should be more forth coming in this investigation, we've seen many cases solved due to this very thing.

Police investigations, forensics have come so far in what they were that many years ago in the Chamberlain case. Cameras, dna, the dogs, they don't lie and warp or slant facts and evidence. They tell the story. There is also witnesses to the comings and goings leading up to and after the events of this case that can be documented. For example, just how many bottles of wine was consumed that fateful night. There will be receipts for what they drank, ate, what time the food and beverages were charged on their credit cards, rooms bills.

The police have done what they felt was right from the beginning. I'ts easy to sit back and say what they should have done. Hindsight is always better and more informed after the fact. The only one that had the upper hand at the onset of this investigation was the perp, blaming the police is a horrible trend in this world that's become acceptable due to defence lawyers trying to get guilty clients off.

There's always exceptions to where police have went after the wrong person, but those cases have been brought to the attention of the public, re-investigated and many many falsely prosecuted people have been set free.
Police only have so much they can do to help fight and solve crime. Finally the Chamberlain case was completely solved and righted for the innocent. Thank goodness this isn't the norm. We learn from mistakes like these. We also learn over time the actual involvement the very ones that should love children are more likely the perps than strangers, which is something you wouldn't have convinced the public of 30 years ago either. Especially the mother.

The criminals are the bad people, not police.

You are actually making my point for me. You are right when you say there are leaks from both sides. You are also right when you say that the police have made mistakes.
All I am saying and will continue to say, is that until we have some real information to go on, I will continue to keep an open mind.

[Rino]

Hi philamena....

I think that there has been a rush to judgment. I think that lots of people cannot get past the fact that they showed terrible judgment in leaving those children alone. I think some of those people can say it don't make them murderers, but can't actually feel it.That's not a dig at anyone, I think it's human nature.
Bold mine.....

That is plain silly.

The cry "they've taken her", reported first by her sister in law only to change months later - definately sounded an alarm.

The investigaion shows no forced entry, the shutters were not touched as indicated.

Although no blood was evident to the naked eye, dogs found some in the apt along with "the scent of death". Which, KM had a muriad of reasons and excuses why that might be

Jane Tannners wishy-washy eye witeness, now countered twice.

Murat no longer a suspect, the alibi prooved true.

Gerry in his first televised interview said in no way did he feel any thing wrong, it was a lovely holiday, they could not think of anything upon being asked that would indicate any danger to Maddie. Only to change this with the revelation that indeed, a few days ago, he felt they were being watched. By the by, if he felt they were being wathced brings us back to square one - why leave the kids unattenede?

They won't talk about many aspects of the case due to respecting Portugese law...but they also won't answer all the questions and they claim now to have hired a PI security firm 3 weeks after the "abduction", which is too against Portugese law.

So no, not because they were in their own words "naive" does anyone think they very likely had a hand in her disappearance, but because of the abbriavated list above.

[Brefie]

I don't see how this statement isn't anything but a rush to judgement. How can you say the police investigation is botched? Becuase someone leaked some information that doesn't mean it's botched. We don't even know if it's true leaks, no sources have been named or charged, just innuendo. The leaks could also be from the other side. We don't know.

Giving the public information isn't botching anything, it's what's done in most cases to a degree in order to get help from the public. If any, the police should be more forth coming in this investigation, we've seen many cases solved due to this very thing.

Police investigations, forensics have come so far in what they were that many years ago in the Chamberlain case. Cameras, dna, the dogs, they don't lie and warp or slant facts and evidence. They tell the story. There is also witnesses to the comings and goings leading up to and after the events of this case that can be documented. For example, just how many bottles of wine was consumed that fateful night. There will be receipts for what they drank, ate, what time the food and beverages were charged on their credit cards, rooms bills.

The police have done what they felt was right from the beginning. I'ts easy to sit back and say what they should have done. Hindsight is always better and more informed after the fact. The only one that had the upper hand at the onset of this investigation was the perp, blaming the police is a horrible trend in this world that's become acceptable due to defence lawyers trying to get guilty clients off.

There's always exceptions to where police have went after the wrong person, but those cases have been brought to the attention of the public, re-investigated and many many falsely prosecuted people have been set free.
Police only have so much they can do to help fight and solve crime. Finally the Chamberlain case was completely solved and righted for the innocent. Thank goodness this isn't the norm. We learn from mistakes like these. We also learn over time the actual involvement the very ones that should love children are more likely the perps than strangers, which is something you wouldn't have convinced the public of 30 years ago either. Especially the mother.

The criminals are the bad people, not police.


I would say the Police investigation is/was botched. The parents should always be the first suspects, they were not. These tests should have been done IMMEDIATELY, not a couple months later. The apartment should have never been released for rent - it was. There were MANY mistakes made.


Just because the police do their best, doesn't mean anyone has to accept it as good enough. I am sure there is a large number of innocent people in prison, or have been and an even larger number of criminals not caught.
There are plenty of crooked cops out there. I am very grateful for all of the good guys in LE, that's for sure, but unfortunately, some bad guys get through.

[Brefie]

Bold mine.....

That is plain silly.

The cry "they've taken her", reported first by her sister in law only to change months later - definately sounded an alarm.

The investigaion shows no forced entry, the shutters were not touched as indicated.

Although no blood was evident to the naked eye, dogs found some in the apt along with "the scent of death". Which, KM had a muriad of reasons and excuses why that might be

Jane Tannners wishy-washy eye witeness, now countered twice.

Murat no longer a suspect, the alibi prooved true.

Gerry in his first televised interview said in no way did he feel any thing wrong, it was a lovely holiday, they could not think of anything upon being asked that would indicate any danger to Maddie. Only to change this with the revelation that indeed, a few days ago, he felt they were being watched. By the by, if he felt they were being wathced brings us back to square one - why leave the kids unattenede?

They won't talk about many aspects of the case due to respecting Portugese law...but they also won't answer all the questions and they claim now to have hired a PI security firm 3 weeks after the "abduction", which is too against Portugese law.

So no, not because they were in their own words "naive" does anyone think they very likely had a hand in her disappearance, but because of the abbriavated list above.

So what?
I still stand by my point that SOME PEOPLE cannot get past the fact they left the kids alone. I am not saying you are not allowed to be suspicious because of other factors.

[wtsn5]

I also need to add we really don't know if the "they've taken her" statement is true - what I have read all is heresay. The sister in law was not there. All the leaks are just that leaks not proven facts. If the police had so much evidence why haven't they been charged. In fact they and all their friends should have been made "suspects" that first night.
All the talk of inconsistancy with what the McCanns have said or didn't say might be just the medai manipulating a quote a phrase - rather than play the whole conversation we are only hearing a portion. It like when I was a child playing telephone - you tell someone something by the time it went around the circle it was completely another word or phrase.

JMO

[Brefie]

I also need to add we really don't know if the "they've taken her" statement is true - what I have read all is heresay. The sister in law was not there. All the leaks are just that leaks not proven facts. If the police had so much evidence why haven't they been charged. In fact they and all their friends should have been made "suspects" that first night.
All the talk of inconsistancy with what the McCanns have said or didn't say might be just the medai manipulating a quote a phrase - rather than play the whole conversation we are only hearing a portion. It like when I was a child playing telephone - you tell someone something by the time it went around the circle it was completely another word or phrase.

JMO

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Exactly.

[AfterMidnight]

The real truth is in the hands of the prosecutor csds, none of us know what they have yet, hopefully there will be a trial and we will find out the truth.

Hopefully the guilty party will be put on trial and the real truth will come out. I think we all want that. I further hope the parents won't be put on trial just to clear the case and appease those hungry for someone's blood. We don't even know Madeleine is dead yet.

[Rino]

So what?
I still stand by my point that SOME PEOPLE cannot get past the fact they left the kids alone. I am not saying you are not allowed to be suspicious because of other factors.
No you didn't.

Not getting past the fact they they left their kids and making the jump that that is why some conclude they are murderes is what you said. Which in turn is a strong indication that you have closed your mind to the other suspicious factors some of us look at.

You, and others, have use the fact that bad judgemnt does not equal murder, which makes you right :woohoo: But it also does not equal innocence, which may make you wrong :eek:

[Brefie]

No you didn't.

Not getting past the fact they they left their kids and making the jump that that is why some conclude they are murderes is what you said. Which in turn is a strong indication that you have closed your mind to the other suspicious factors some of us look at.

You, and others, have use the fact that bad judgemnt does not equal murder, which makes you right :woohoo: But it also does not equal innocence, which may make you wrong :eek:

I could care less about being right. It's my opinion.

I have stated plenty of times on this board that if ACTUAL undisputed evidence comes to light, I will scream for them to receive the harshest punishment. I have not seen any just yet. A leak does not make for a solid fact.

'Suspicious factors' are subject to opinion. Because you and I don't agree what makes a suspicious factor does not mean I have closed my mind.

[csds703]

I could care less about being right. It's my opinion.

I have stated plenty of times on this board that if ACTUAL undisputed evidence comes to light, I will scream for them to receive the harshest punishment. I have not seen any just yet. A leak does not make for a solid fact.

'Suspicious factors' are subject to opinion. Because you and I don't agree what makes a suspicious factor does not mean I have closed my mind.


I totally agree with this statement. This is exactly how I feel word for word.

[KBUK]

I don't know if this is appropriate here but I think it needs pointing out that here in the UK children don't go missing/ get kidnapped/ murdered on a regular basis. (although it is becoming more common). We are not so acutely aware of the dangers as in the USA, we are more relaxed with our children, but certainly not to the point of negligence. We do not have Amber Alerts etc. For example, my next door neighbour came round recently to share a drink. Her children were asleep, her doors were locked and she checked on them regularly (every 10 minutes) - is this not similar to the McCanns?

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending them, I am still unsure which side of the fence I am on. I just wanted to point this out. I see it is hard to understand the Portugese/ english laws as it is to also understand the way of life.

[Brefie]

I don't know if this is appropriate here but I think it needs pointing out that here in the UK children don't go missing/ get kidnapped/ murdered on a regular basis. (although it is becoming more common). We are not so acutely aware of the dangers as in the USA, we are more relaxed with our children, but certainly not to the point of negligence. We do not have Amber Alerts etc. For example, my next door neighbour came round recently to share a drink. Her children were asleep, her doors were locked and she checked on them regularly (every 10 minutes) - is this not similar to the McCanns?

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending them, I am still unsure which side of the fence I am on. I just wanted to point this out. I see it is hard to understand the Portugese/ english laws as it is to also understand the way of life.

Ok, y'all, don't faint but.......

No, it is not similar to the McCann's. If anyone had tried to break into your neighbor's home, I am willing to bet you both would have heard it. Possibly even heard them cry if they woke? I am guessing clearly, but my point is that they had a 'journey' to get to their children, your neighbor simply had to peek out of your window to know there was not a fire or a light on, etc...again, I am guessing about the situation at your home, but the distance thing is the very big difference.

[Rino]

I don't know if this is appropriate here but I think it needs pointing out that here in the UK children don't go missing/ get kidnapped/ murdered on a regular basis. (although it is becoming more common). We are not so acutely aware of the dangers as in the USA, we are more relaxed with our children, but certainly not to the point of negligence. We do not have Amber Alerts etc. For example, my next door neighbour came round recently to share a drink. Her children were asleep, her doors were locked and she checked on them regularly (every 10 minutes) - is this not similar to the McCanns?

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending them, I am still unsure which side of the fence I am on. I just wanted to point this out. I see it is hard to understand the Portugese/ english laws as it is to also understand the way of life.

I agree that the simple act of leaving them does not equal their guilt of her abduction.

But, there always is a but :), with the latest news that GM indicated he believed they were being watched prior to the abduction, I now find it even more diffictult to defend such a mistake.

At first I didn't think tehy had anything to do with her dissappearance, on the face of it it appeared to be a tragic outcome from a bad decision. The aftermath is what makes me lean toward their guilt today.

[KBUK]

Ok, y'all, don't faint but.......

No, it is not similar to the McCann's. If anyone had tried to break into your neighbor's home, I am willing to bet you both would have heard it. Possibly even heard them cry if they woke? I am guessing clearly, but my point is that they had a 'journey' to get to their children, your neighbor simply had to peek out of your window to know there was not a fire or a light on, etc...again, I am guessing about the situation at your home, but the distance thing is the very big difference.

Hi Brefie, I agree, my use of the word 'similar' was probably used in the wrong context. What I was trying to get across was that here in the UK, due to the fact that this is such a rareity, we are more relaxed about the decisions we make regarding the safety of our children. I was fully expecting a bashing for leaving children alone! You're right, we could see, hear etc. even though our houses are detached. Probably not the best example! What I guess I'm trying to say, is that to some extent I understand why they thought it was okay. It doesn't make them murderers.

[colomom]

I just want to jump in and say that I really hope that people don't think that my theories about what happened to Madeleine are based solely on the fact that her parents left her alone.

That is just the icing on the cake and to me represents a fundamental lack of care for those babies.

The cake is made from many more ingredients.

BTW, I can feel the love on this thread :D

[pinto]

Ok, y'all, don't faint but.......

No, it is not similar to the McCann's. If anyone had tried to break into your neighbor's home, I am willing to bet you both would have heard it. Possibly even heard them cry if they woke? I am guessing clearly, but my point is that they had a 'journey' to get to their children, your neighbor simply had to peek out of your window to know there was not a fire or a light on, etc...again, I am guessing about the situation at your home, but the distance thing is the very big difference.

I think she/he's saying that the ATTITUDE is similar to the McCanns'. There is not the fear and suspicion there that is present in the US.

That may be changing, as shown by the mumsnet link I posted in the Mark Warner thread, but it's difficult to judge UK attitudes by US standards. It isn't fair.

UK and Euros judge US by their own standards, too, and gee, many don't like us that much ... :snooty:

edit: oops, OP already clarified ...

[Brefie]

Hi Brefie, I agree, my use of the word 'similar' was probably used in the wrong context. What I was trying to get across was that here in the UK, due to the fact that this is such a rareity, we are more relaxed about the decisions we make regarding the safety of our children. I was fully expecting a bashing for leaving children alone! You're right, we could see, hear etc. even though our houses are detached. Probably not the best example! What I guess I'm trying to say, is that to some extent I understand why they thought it was okay. It doesn't make them murderers.

Gotcha...I agree it don't make them murderers. I do sorta see it as a cultural difference, but I cannot get over the distance. I do think there is a more relaxed attitude from the UK, due to these things not happening as much, but they were just so darned far away!!

[colomom]

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1699003&postcount=81

A very good post that I thought should be here too....

[southcitymom]

That's how I've been feeling too, SCM. But, just for today, I have a glimmer of hope.

Chances are that you are right. :(

I didn't mean to be such a buzzkill! I will take your glimmer of hope and run with it!:blowkiss:

[sandraladeda]

There are still people that believe Lindy Chamberlain killed her baby- when in reality she was cleared and a dingo took her baby.
She was persecuted by the media who labelled her insensitive and uncaring about what happened to Azaria, people hated her because she didn't seem to be crying enough and showing enough grief.
They found blood in the boot of their car- which 6 years later proved to be car fluid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

The similarities between these two couples are startling, both devout Christians, both were on holiday when their child disappeared and both had 2 other children.
More at link.

The dingo took Madeleine!! :D

[sandraladeda]

I waffle back and forth on guilt of the parents. For me, the one thing that has niggled at my mind from the start is this.

Realistically, there is a very small likelihood of a random stranger abduction/murder of a child. For the small probability of a pedophile/child abductor to be strolling through a Portuguese resort to collide with the small window of opportunity (what? About 90 minutes?) for Madeleine to be abducted, what are the odds of this truly happening? I'm not saying impossible, I'm saying unlikely.

At the very least, I am surprised the police have not looked at the entire Tapas party, as these people, along with the Drs. McC, are the only ones who we can say with certaintly knew the children were alone, and knew an opportunity for abduction existed.

Rush to judgement? Not unless you consider several months to be a "rush". I think the move towards looking more closely at the parents (and their friends) should have happened earlier, if only for the purpose of eliminating the most obvious (and statisitcally most likely) suspects.

I say, while looking at the parents, look at the circle of friends too. These people all knew the children were alone.

moo

[Texana]

The window of time was about thirty minutes between checks, and that had to include tampering with/breaking open the window shutters from the inside as well as carrying Maddie out at a time when no one was approaching in either direction (not necessarily something you could ascertain from the window viewpoint.) Gerry stated that he thought Madeleine had been taken out through the window, the abductor having entered through the (presumably) unlocked door during the first 30 minute window and then hiding until Gerry left.

It's the window climb that gets me. Why would an abductor leave carrying a child out the window, when he/she came in via the door?

However, the window tampering from the inside is the reason the McCanns immediately knew it was an abduction. The window was not apparently tampered with when Gerry checked at 9:05 or Matthew Oldfield did his listening only check at 9:35 (approximately.) It was at 10:05 when Kate came to check and found Madeleine missing.

The window shutter story is just not plausible to me, it suggests staging, and I don't think it's a rush to judgement to think that way.

[dingo]

The dingo took Madeleine!! :DThats about the only thing we can be sure of that didnt happen:)

[docwho3]

The dingo took Madeleine!! :D Eyeing member dingo with suspicion now. :cool:

[Texana]

Thats about the only thing we can be sure of that didnt happen:)

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Do you have a link for that? :crazy:

[dingo]

Eyeing member dingo with suspicion now. :cool: The dingo is innocent this time:D

[dingo]

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Do you have a link for that? :crazy::p :D

[Shazza]

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Do you have a link for that? :crazy:
I cant find it:silenced: :D

[SleuthMom]

Actually we don't know any of this. We know it's a botched police investigation with alot of leaks to the press.
While the mob mentality is focusing only on the McCann's the real truth is slipping away.

Yes, we know they were made arguidos (official suspects) Mr. Mc Cann's lawyer confirmed that right after the last interview with the police.

[Shazza]

I just want to jump in and say that I really hope that people don't think that my theories about what happened to Madeleine are based solely on the fact that her parents left her alone.

That is just the icing on the cake and to me represents a fundamental lack of care for those babies.

The cake is made from many more ingredients.

BTW, I can feel the love on this thread :D

I feel the love as well Colomom, and agree with your post also.:clap:

[Rino]

Actually we don't know any of this. We know it's a botched police investigation with alot of leaks to the press.
While the mob mentality is focusing only on the McCann's the real truth is slipping away.
They were both made arguidos, first Kate then Gerry after their interviews, fact.

The police botched investigation, opinion. Mob mentality, opinion.

[IrishMist]

They were both made arguidos, first Kate then Gerry after their interviews, fact.

The police botched investigation, opinion. Mob mentality, opinion.

Considering what few facts we have access to, I think the majority of what we discuss on here is opinion! :)

[colomom]

OMG...the dingo suspicions...ROTFLMAO!

Thanks doc, Tex and dingo....

:D

[SleuthMom]

They were both made arguidos, first Kate then Gerry after their interviews, fact.

The police botched investigation, opinion. Mob mentality, opinion.

:clap:

[SleuthMom]

Considering what few facts we have access to, I think the majority of what we discuss on here is opinion! :)

Yes, most of it exept for two facts: Maddie is missing and her own parents were made official suspects on her disappearance.

[IrishMist]

Yes, most of it exept for two facts: Maddie is missing and her own parents were made official suspects on her disappearance.

Yup, that's about all the facts we know :eek:

[Rino]

Yes, most of it exept for two facts: Maddie is missing and her own parents were made official suspects on her disappearance.
And KM left her kids alone twice that evening...

[IrishMist]

And KM left her kids alone twice that evening...

You mean between checking on them?

[Rino]

You mean between checking on them?
No, to report Maddie missing she left the twins, again.

[SleuthMom]

You mean between checking on them?

Nah, that's speculation. ;) We do not know for a fact they checked on the kids at the times they said they did in the first place.

[IrishMist]

No, to report Maddie missing she left the twins, again.

Oh, I see what you mean.

[IrishMist]

Nah, that's speculation. ;) We do not know for a fact they checked on the kids at the times they said they did in the first place.

True, they may not have checked on the kids at all. Very few facts, indeed!

[wtsn5]

JMO The parents and their friends should have been made "arguidos"(sp) from the beginning. Period.

We also don't know if the McCanns did do follow ups on all the other sightings as their "investigate firm" should have done. As they kept the fact they had hired them 3 weeks into Madeleines disappearance I'm sure they did. The question I have with the "PR Firm" is why are the McCanns releasing the hire of them so late in the game. I know Portugals laws prohibit them from doing so but why release this news now? Anyone know?

I am not sure if the McCanns are guilty or not, but I was really hoping that pictured turned out to be her and she was safe - otherwise i just can't even think about what she is going through or went through.

[IrishMist]

JMO The parents and their friends should have been made "arguidos"(sp) from the beginning. Period.

We also don't know if the McCanns did do follow ups on all the other sightings as their "investigate firm" should have done. As they kept the fact they had hired them 3 weeks into Madeleines disappearance I'm sure they did. The question I have with the "PR Firm" is why are the McCanns releasing the hire of them so late in the game. I know Portugals laws prohibit them from doing so but why release this news now? Anyone know?

I am not sure if the McCanns are guilty or not, but I was really hoping that pictured turned out to be her and she was safe - otherwise i just can't even think about what she is going through or went through.

While I don't know for sure, I assume they are trying to fight back against the lies, rumors and innuendo that has surrounded this case. I also have to assume that they hired this firm for a reason, and that's so that some of these other sightings are investigated. That's just my opinion, you will certainly hear a differing one here shortly! :D

[AfterMidnight]

While I don't know for sure, I assume they are trying to fight back against the lies, rumors and innuendo that has surrounded this case. I also have to assume that they hired this firm for a reason, and that's so that some of these other sightings are investigated. That's just my opinion, you will certainly hear a differing one here shortly! :D

Not from me! I agree with every word you said. :blowkiss:

[Rino]

While I don't know for sure, I assume they are trying to fight back against the lies, rumors and innuendo that has surrounded this case. I also have to assume that they hired this firm for a reason, and that's so that some of these other sightings are investigated. That's just my opinion, you will certainly hear a differing one here shortly! :D
Here ya go...:innocent:


Originally Posted by IrishMist
True, they may not have checked on the kids at all. Very few facts, indeed!

[SleuthMom]

Well, helloooo guys? They were made official suspects! Jail food is not something I think they are dreaming about to taste anytime soon! :D

They MUST do whatever it takes to take away all this pressure from their shoulders somehow. Interesting the timing for hiring the firm though.

[IrishMist]

Well, helloooo guys? They were made official suspects! Jail food is not something I think they are dreaming about to taste anytime soon! :D

They MUST do whatever it takes to take away all this pressure from their shoulders somehow. Interesting the timing for hiring the firm though.

Being made suspects does not make them guilty.

[IrishMist]

Here ya go...:innocent:

I'm not sure I understand your point, Rino. Taken in context, I was agreeing that there are few facts for us to go on, not that I believe they didn't check on their kids.

[colomom]

I hope you all know that this firm (CRG) was reported to have been hired 4 1/2 months ago, right after Maddies dissapearance.

If you read about this group I think you will find that their "investigative" action would be minimal, at best. They are "damage dontrol specialists". They pretty much advise people (their clients) on how to behave in order to minimize damage.

Seems to me that Clarence thought if he presented them as an "investigative" body, that would cover all the "why did they not hire PI's" questions.

For more info:

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=17221&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Risks_Group

and their website

http://www.crg.com/default.aspx?page=2

[IrishMist]

I hope you all know that this firm (CRG) was reported to have been hired 4 1/2 months ago, right after Maddies dissapearance.

If you read about this group I think you will find that their "investigative" action would be minimal, at best. They are "damage dontrol specialists". They pretty much advise people (their clients) on how to behave in order to minimize damage.

Seems to me that Clarence thought if he presented them as an "investigative" body, that would cover all the "why did they not hire PI's" questions.

For more info:

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=17221&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Risks_Group

and their website

http://www.crg.com/default.aspx?page=2

They also do other things:

One of the areas the company specialises in is background checks on individuals and criminal organisations.

It is also expected to help the McCanns deal with sifting through the large number of tip-offs they receive.

AND

The London-based organisation, which has more than 600 employees and 18 offices around the world, was set up 30 years ago to help kidnap victims in Latin America.

Its first three recruits came from the SAS and it now claims to have one of the world's largest independent technical forensic laboratories specialising in audio, visual and computer analysis.


Bold emphasis mine.
Link to article. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/24/nmaddy124.xml)

As an aside, I highly doubt the McCann's could call them investigators and get away with it if they didn't work in that capacity. It's a well known agency.

[wtsn5]

I hope you all know that this firm (CRG) was reported to have been hired 4 1/2 months ago, right after Maddies dissapearance.

If you read about this group I think you will find that their "investigative" action would be minimal, at best. They are "damage dontrol specialists". They pretty much advise people (their clients) on how to behave in order to minimize damage.

Seems to me that Clarence thought if he presented them as an "investigative" body, that would cover all the "why did they not hire PI's" questions.

For more info:

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=17221&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Risks_Group

and their website

http://www.crg.com/default.aspx?page=2


What a strange choice to hire them. Did the McCanns or the fund hire them? And for what purpose if it was not to locate Maddie. At the beginning what "damage control" did the parents need taking care of.
This case just keeps getting more and more confusing.

[wtsn5]

They also do other things:

One of the areas the company specialises in is background checks on individuals and criminal organisations.

It is also expected to help the McCanns deal with sifting through the large number of tip-offs they receive.

AND

The London-based organisation, which has more than 600 employees and 18 offices around the world, was set up 30 years ago to help kidnap victims in Latin America.

Its first three recruits came from the SAS and it now claims to have one of the world's largest independent technical forensic laboratories specialising in audio, visual and computer analysis.


Bold emphasis mine.
Link to article. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/24/nmaddy124.xml)

As an aside, I highly doubt the McCann's could call them investigators and get away with it if they didn't work in that capacity. It's a well known agency.


Thanks Irish for clarifying that.

[amyandjohn]

Hi, I am new posting here, but have read almost every post about this poor child.

I work for an attorney here in Florida, but she is from the UK and I asked her opinion about leaving children alone, was that something normal for them to do? She told me absolutely not. She was never left alone nor would she ever leave her children alone. I don't know if it just differs with each person, but I mean, she is an attorney, so she can afford a resort such as this one, and she is intelligent, per my opinion, maybe not everyone's and she wouldn't leave her children alone. She actually told me she would not even hire a babysitter service, she would not trust anyone but herself or her husband, unless she hired them herself and used all the time.

Just another perspective.

Thank You.

Or family, sorry, missed that.

[Rino]

I'm not sure I understand your point, Rino. Taken in context, I was agreeing that there are few facts for us to go on, not that I believe they didn't check on their kids.

I know ;)


You answered they hired a PR firm to fight back against the lies, rumors and innuendo that has surrounded this case.

But admittedly you know True, they may not have checked on the kids at all.

I guess I was trying to point out that to believe the McCanns you have to pick and choose what you want to beleive. To doubt the McCanns you simply do not.

[Love_Mama]

Hi, I am new posting here, but have read almost every post about this poor child.

I work for an attorney here in Florida, but she is from the UK and I asked her opinion about leaving children alone, was that something normal for them to do? She told me absolutely not. She was never left alone nor would she ever leave her children alone. I don't know if it just differs with each person, but I mean, she is an attorney, so she can afford a resort such as this one, and she is intelligent, per my opinion, maybe not everyone's and she wouldn't leave her children alone. She actually told me she would not even hire a babysitter service, she would not trust anyone but herself or her husband, unless she hired them herself and used all the time.

Just another perspective.

Thank You.

Or family, sorry, missed that.

amyandjohn, Thank you!

I never did think that ALL European's just leave there children alone and guess that's because I think there was a reason the this mommy and daddy did it!

I seriously think that there is absolutly no one here on WS that would leave 3 children alone while they went partying! This is sooooooooo important in this case, I just can't stop thinking about it.

So thank you AGAIN amyandjohn.

xxxxxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss: :blowkiss:

[CaliKid]

I hope you all know that this firm (CRG) was reported to have been hired 4 1/2 months ago, right after Maddies dissapearance.

If you read about this group I think you will find that their "investigative" action would be minimal, at best. They are "damage dontrol specialists". They pretty much advise people (their clients) on how to behave in order to minimize damage.

Seems to me that Clarence thought if he presented them as an "investigative" body, that would cover all the "why did they not hire PI's" questions.

For more info:

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=17221&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Risks_Group

and their website

http://www.crg.com/default.aspx?page=2

Damage control? As in, "we've done something wrong and may get caught so let's deal with it before it happens?" That sounds like the McCanns.

[Squishified]

amyandjohn, Thank you!

I never did think that ALL European's just leave there children alone and guess that's because I think there was a reason the this mommy and daddy did it!

I seriously think that there is absolutly no one here on WS that would leave 3 children alone while they went partying! This is sooooooooo important in this case, I just can't stop thinking about it.

So thank you AGAIN amyandjohn.

xxxxxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss: :blowkiss:
Ditto what Mama said! Welcome amyandjohn! I don't post a whole lot on the Maddie thread but I read all posts.

[IrishMist]

I know ;)


You answered they hired a PR firm to fight back against the lies, rumors and innuendo that has surrounded this case.

But admittedly you know

I guess I was trying to point out that to believe the McCanns you have to pick and choose what you want to beleive. To doubt the McCanns you simply do not.

Of course you do.

[Rino]

Of course you do.
This time I don't follow. I doubt them because I don't beleive everything that they put out there.

Example: 1-GM we were not being watched, KM nodds in agreement
2-GK we beleive we were being watched.

To believe 1, number 2 is a fabrication
To believe 2, why leave your kids unattended?

[SleuthMom]

Being made suspects does not make them guilty.

Never said that. What I am saying is that their latest move is expected based on them being arguidos in the case. Now the TIMING is very interesting.

[IrishMist]

This time I don't follow. I doubt them because I don't beleive everything that they put out there.

Example: 1-GM we were not being watched, KM nodds in agreement
2-GK we beleive we were being watched.

To believe 1, number 2 is a fabrication
To believe 2, why leave your kids unattended?

Right. That's my point. You pick and choose what to believe, as do I. We're the both of us completely free to do so, but it doesn't make what we believe a fact. It remains an opinion.

Two intelligent people can look at the same thing and come away with different opinions. But facts are facts, regardless of what we think of them. And in this case, we are sorely lacking in facts. That's all.

[SleuthMom]

Hi, I am new posting here, but have read almost every post about this poor child.

I work for an attorney here in Florida, but she is from the UK and I asked her opinion about leaving children alone, was that something normal for them to do? She told me absolutely not. She was never left alone nor would she ever leave her children alone. I don't know if it just differs with each person, but I mean, she is an attorney, so she can afford a resort such as this one, and she is intelligent, per my opinion, maybe not everyone's and she wouldn't leave her children alone. She actually told me she would not even hire a babysitter service, she would not trust anyone but herself or her husband, unless she hired them herself and used all the time.

Just another perspective.

Thank You.

Or family, sorry, missed that.

Thanks for that! Having lived in different parts of the world, the whole "cultural" issue is non-sense to me. We are not speaking about people living in some remote and strange culture, these people are from the UK! :rolleyes:

Having said that, I think this is a merely PERSONAL parenting issue and has nothing to do with how Europeans do things. This was just the Mc Canns doing what they did many times before.

[Rino]

Right. That's my point. You pick and choose what to believe, as do I. We're the both of us completely free to do so, but it doesn't make what we believe a fact. It remains an opinion.

Two intelligent people can look at the same thing and come away with different opinions. But facts are facts, regardless of what we think of them. And in this case, we are sorely lacking in facts. That's all.
Wrong.

Gerry McCann has said both. They were not being watched, they were being watched, in that order on two different occasions. Which do you believe?

I don't know what to beleive, thats why I have doubts.

[IrishMist]

Never said that. What I am saying is that their latest move is expected based on them being arguidos in the case. Now the TIMING is very interesting.

Do you mean the timing of hiring the agency? Why do you find that to be interesting?

[IrishMist]

Wrong.

Gerry McCann has said both. They were not being watched, they were being watched, in that order on two different occasions. Which do you believe?

I don't know what to beleive, thats why I have doubts.

Can you give me links to what you are talking about so I can see it in context? Then I can speak to that specific issue.

But overall, in line with what you and I have been discussing, it's still your opinion that he's lying, isn't it? I understand why you have doubts, even if I don't agree with you. But that doesn't change what I've been saying. That those are our opinions, not facts.

[SleuthMom]

Do you mean the timing of hiring the agency? Why do you find that to be interesting?

No, I meant the timing of it coming to "light".

[IrishMist]

No, I meant the timing of it coming to "light".

Oh! Gotcha. Now I see what you mean. Of course, I don't agree with you, but I see what you're saying.

You didn't faint did ya? :D

[wtsn5]

No, I meant the timing of it coming to "light".


I also found that to be curious but it has been suggested to me that maybe it is the new PR person putting their spin on it. Also maybe with all the leaks the police have had the McCanns felt maybe they should leak something also. I don't know.

JMO

[Rino]

Can you give me links to what you are talking about so I can see it in context? Then I can speak to that specific issue.

First televised interview." Looking back did you see anything leading up to the abduction... racking your brains to think if people might have been watching?"

Kate "We didn't" nodding... Gerry, "If we did we wouldn't tell you....giggle...we didn't, you know, it was such a relaxing holiday....up until that point as good a holiday we've had with the children."
http://youtube.com/jp.swf?video_id=N44SSvIcDvA&eurl=http%3A//ionglobaltrends.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine%2520McCann&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/N44SSvIcDvA/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJ0oJvouMjSKTSOTnFPMdWU

Madeleine's father's chilling belief: 'Kidnapper was hiding in flat when I checked on her'.....
The McCanns are convinced Madeleine was being watched during the course of their week-long holiday in the Algarve.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=483026&in_page_id=1811


But overall, in line with what you and I have been discussing, it's still your opinion that he's lying, isn't it? I understand why you have doubts, even if I don't agree with you. But that doesn't change what I've been saying. That those are our opinions, not facts.

They have been inconsistant (this is just one example). Which do you choose to beleive. I simply don't know, therefore, I have doubts.

[Jdee]

I watched the video (again as it's an old one now and needed to rewatch it) and read the article and to me it just seems in the beginning they didn't think anything was amis... Then later ... after he rethinks the 'abuduction' he decides that Madeleine was being watched. I don't really see this as his changing his tune. I would probably do the same and looking back rethink everything and come up with new and different scenerios.:twocents:

[IrishMist]

I watched the video (again as it's an old one now and needed to rewatch it) and read the article and to me it just seems in the beginning they didn't think anything was amis... Then later ... after he rethinks the 'abuduction' he decides that Madeleine was being watched. I don't really see this as his changing his tune. I would probably do the same and looking back rethink everything and come up with new and different scenerios.:twocents:

I couldn't get back in earlier to answer you, Rino, but if I could have, it would have been what Jdee said.

[docwho3]

. . . She was never left alone nor would she ever leave her children alone. . . Thats good to know, thanks.

. . . She actually told me she would not even hire a babysitter service, she would not trust anyone but herself or her husband, unless she hired them herself and used all the time. . .
With this added bit it sounds like a little of both sentiments have a place.

1. Not willing to leave a child alone.

2. Not wanting to trust anyone else or any listening service or sitter etc. (If I understood you correctly about the 2nd point.)

The mccann parents seemed to have agreed with the 2nd point.
Hard to tell if they somehow thought that checkng on the kids themselves was really an acceptable compromise with point number one.

Thanks for sharing the viewpoint. :)

[pinto]

Thanks for that! Having lived in different parts of the world, the whole "cultural" issue is non-sense to me. We are not speaking about people living in some remote and strange culture, these people are from the UK! :rolleyes:

A question: would you feed your 5 year old a beer? What would you think of a parent who did?

(Anyone can answer)

[solidarity]

I have been thinking over and over about Kate's first uttered words, upon her noticing Madeleine's disappearance: "They've taken her!".

To me, it almost sounds as if she knew exactly WHO had taken her....kind of like "they've done it!", which leads me to believe that perhaps the McCanns had been receiving threats, being intimidated or blackmailed in some way prior to all this. If this was the case, it would obviously have to involve something ilegal, or else they would've been upfront about it. I am thinking perhaps drugs, or something else that would in the same way damage their "image" or put them in a precarious legal position. In this scenario, I could also understand Kate's words: "we failed her".

I wonder if anyone else thinks this could be a likely theory?

[solidarity]

A question: would you feed your 5 year old a beer? What would you think of a parent who did?

(Anyone can answer)

If my child showed curiosity in a beer/wine, I would certainly let him take a sip. Personally, I think that children focus more on "prohibited" things. Most children would find the taste quite "yukky" and quickly move on.

P.S. This was what I did with my own son...he is 25 today and a non-drinker!!

[Brefie]

If my child showed curiosity in a beer, I would certainly let him take a sip. Personally, I think that children focus more on "prohibited" things. Most children would find the taste quite "yukky" and quickly move on.

I would too.

[Brefie]

I have been thinking over and over about Kate's first uttered words, upon her noticing Madeleine's disappearance: "They've taken her!".

To me, it almost sounds as if she knew exactly WHO had taken her....kind of like "they've done it!", which leads me to believe that perhaps the McCanns had been receiving threats, being intimidated or blackmailed in some way prior to all this. If this was the case, it would obviously have to involve something ilegal, or else they would've been upfront about it. I am thinking perhaps drugs, or something else that would in the same way damage their "image" or put them in a precarious legal position. In this scenario, I could also understand Kate's words: "we failed her".

I wonder if anyone else thinks this could be a likely theory?

If it was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt that she actually said these words, your theory is plausible, for sure. There are a couple different accounts for what she actually said, though.

[philamena]

Yup, that's about all the facts we know :eek:

:clap::clap:

[Texana]

The McCann changes in opinion or statements don't come as most people's do, with a transition explaining. There's no "We felt safe, but now we realize that..."

This is true for every single inconsistency that the McCanns show. They are never leaving Portugal without Madeleine, then they are headed home.

Gerry and Kate did not feel watched. Then they are sure they are watched.

Kate's sister (or sister-in-law) says that when Kate called her, she said "They've taken her." That comment is repeated in multiple news articles for four months, until this month, when Kate's friends and family announce to the press, "She never said that." No explanation as to why, for four months, the previous "misstatement" went uncorrected.

There is never any kind of transition or explanation, which is not usual for most people. Most people feel compelled to explain changes in their publicly stated positions--even the most ordinary and trivial ones.

When those changes are not explained even with the barest or most minimum of explanation, justification, or transition thought process made clear to others, then the response is always the same: But you said! We have a way as humans, of holding each other accountable for what we say. We do it to each other every day, in our daily lives and even on this forum.

At best, the lack of explanation or transition for changes is a kind of arrogance. At worst, it's something closer to a kind of chameleon like ability to say whatever one needs to say or wants to say right now.

[philamena]

.... That's just my opinion, you will certainly hear a differing one here shortly! :D
bawaaaaa that cracked me up. :D
How sweet is our freedom of speech. :)

[solidarity]

The McCann changes in opinion or statements don't come as most people's do, with a transition explaining. There's no "We felt safe, but now we realize that..."

This is true for every single inconsistency that the McCanns show. They are never leaving Portugal without Madeleine, then they are headed home.

Gerry and Kate did not feel watched. Then they are sure they are watched.

Kate's sister (or sister-in-law) says that when Kate called her, she said "They've taken her." That comment is repeated in multiple news articles for four months, until this month, when Kate's friends and family announce to the press, "She never said that." No explanation as to why, for four months, the previous "misstatement" went uncorrected.

There is never any kind of transition or explanation, which is not usual for most people. Most people feel compelled to explain changes in their publicly stated positions--even the most ordinary and trivial ones.

When those changes are not explained even with the barest or most minimum of explanation, justification, or transition thought process made clear to others, then the response is always the same: But you said! We have a way as humans, of holding each other accountable for what we say. We do it to each other every day, in our daily lives and even on this forum.

At best, the lack of explanation or transition for changes is a kind of arrogance. At worst, it's something closer to a kind of chameleon like ability to say whatever one needs to say or wants to say right now.

Very logical train of thought. I agree.

[ThoughtFox]

If my child showed curiosity in a beer/wine, I would certainly let him take a sip. Personally, I think that children focus more on "prohibited" things. Most children would find the taste quite "yukky" and quickly move on.

P.S. This was what I did with my own son...he is 25 today and a non-drinker!!
For me that's not the issue. I realize that in other countries kids drink at earlier ages, and I'm not prudish about that.

The question would be whether you would let your young child drink enough beer to pass out cold.

Besides, if the drug stories are true, and considering the very young age of these children, they weren't given a choice. They couldn't spit out the medication.

[AfterMidnight]

For me that's not the issue. I realize that in other countries kids drink at earlier ages, and I'm not prudish about that.

The question would be whether you would let your young child drink enough beer to pass out cold.

Besides, if the drug stories are true, and considering the very young age of these children, they weren't given a choice. They couldn't spit out the medication.

And what happens if the drug stories aren't true? Do we let the kiddies drink until they just get tipsy?

I don't quite follow the reasoning here. Maybe you can explain? :o

[ThoughtFox]

And what happens if the drug stories aren't true? Do we let the kiddies drink until they just get tipsy?

I don't quite follow the reasoning here. Maybe you can explain? :o
I was responding to Pinto's posts, and maybe I didn't follow her reasoning either, sorry.

I think the drug stories are fairly well established - have the McCanns denied any of it lately?

[AfterMidnight]

No, I don't believe they've denied it lately, but one of them did a while back. I don't recall them admitting it either. Is there a link for them admitting drugging the children, one we can trust?

Did they give the children beer in addition to leaving them alone?

[CaliKid]

No, I don't believe they've denied it lately, but one of them did a while back. I don't recall them admitting it either. Is there a link for them admitting drugging the children, one we can trust?

Did they give the children beer in addition to leaving them alone?

It wasn't a charge, AM, it was a more broadly-discussed subject of cultural differences. The question was brought up about giving a child a beer and posters were asked if we would give a drink to a child. For instance, in some parts of Europe it's considered acceptable within a family to give children watered-down wine as part of a meal.

[ThoughtFox]

Calikid: Thanks ~ that's how I understood it. A hypothetical about cultural differences.

If we say everything that is done in other countries is "acceptable" because it just "is," then we are on a slippery slope of logic, I think.

Of course, there is that old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," and I guess some folks believe that about the Mark Warner Resort.

Although, I will point out once more that they had a nightly care service that was going on that night until 10 p.m.

[Edwards20]

Did I read this correctly ?? You would let your children drink/taste beer at the age of 5 ?

[csds703]

It wasn't a charge, AM, it was a more broadly-discussed subject of cultural differences. The question was brought up about giving a child a beer and posters were asked if we would give a drink to a child. For instance, in some parts of Europe it's considered acceptable within a family to give children watered-down wine as part of a meal.

I was invited to dinner at my bosses house for a holiday and there were little kids there. I think they were 2 and 4. Anyway, there were shotglasses with wine just sitting on the mantle and the kids kept walking over and drinking from them. When I questioned it, they said that was a normal custom where they are from (middle east) and that is why "they" don't have alcohol and substance abuse problems.:hand:
In my snippy sarcastic way, I replied that it's illegal here and I moved the tray.

[strach304]

I was told the same thing CSDS by a woman from El Salvador. Alcohol, cigarettes, etc. no laws against children buying them and that's why they don't have the problems we do. Sounds more to me like they aren't teaching them the dangers involved to permit it.

[gord]

I am fairly well travelled in Europe and the UK and giving 2 to four years old booze is not common whatsoever -

Giving 13 and 14 year olds a glass of very watered down wine is more so - but mainly in continental Europe as oppossed to the UK

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I do think that the fact they left the kids alone has coloured a lot of peoples views - I can accept that . But making a very bad call on babysitting dpes not make a person a murderer .

I still think the most logical answer is a very quick and planned abduction by person or persons unkown who has their eye on her for a few days

[IrishMist]

I am fairly well travelled in Europe and the UK and giving 2 to four years old booze is not common whatsoever -

Giving 13 and 14 year olds a glass of very watered down wine is more so - but mainly in continental Europe as oppossed to the UK

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I do think that the fact they left the kids alone has coloured a lot of peoples views - I can accept that . But making a very bad call on babysitting dpes not make a person a murderer .

I still think the most logical answer is a very quick and planned abduction by person or persons unkown who has their eye on her for a few days

Well said, Gord, great post! :clap:

[april4sky]

I am fairly well travelled in Europe and the UK and giving 2 to four years old booze is not common whatsoever -

Giving 13 and 14 year olds a glass of very watered down wine is more so - but mainly in continental Europe as oppossed to the UK

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I do think that the fact they left the kids alone has coloured a lot of peoples views - I can accept that . But making a very bad call on babysitting dpes not make a person a murderer .

I still think the most logical answer is a very quick and planned abduction by person or persons unkown who has their eye on her for a few days
I agree gord. Great post. :clap: :clap: :clap:

[ThoughtFox]

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I came back to Websleuths to read about this case when I found out the parents had suddenly been named "Arguido." That's not sensational reporting, but a fact.

All the months before that, I gave the parents the benefit of the doubt, and never believed they were guilty of anything. As I caught up reading, I realized there was alot more to it than I thought.

[SleuthMom]

Kate and Gerry Mc Canns have been named official suspects in their daughter's disappearance. This does not make them guilty of murder neither innocent but a mantle of doubts and inconsistencies in their testimonies is what brought up these charges. So let's not pretend as "we have no facts whatsover", YES, WE DO HAVE THAT FACT. THEY ARE SUSPECTS IN MADDIE'S DISAPPEARANCE. As far as I am concerned, that fact has not changed.

[gord]

Kate and Gerry Mc Canns have been named official suspects in their daughter's disappearance. This does not make them guilty of murder neither innocent but a mantle of doubts and inconsistencies in their testimonies is what brought up these charges. So let's not pretend as "we have no facts whatsover", YES, WE DO HAVE THAT FACT. THEY ARE SUSPECTS IN MADDIE'S DISAPPEARANCE. As far as I am concerned, that fact has not changed.


so was robert Murat a suspect - but little has been written about him compared to the mountains of stuff on the mccaans -


I know it has been repeated but the suspect thing in Portugal has to be done in order to question them from a legal basis - it is not the same as being charged - it can be almost the same as " helping police with their enquiries " as we often see in the UK .

The main fact is that the Mccaans are still sitting at home in in England - if the police had anything - anything that was firm and definite - they would be charged and taken on to the next stage . The Mccaans went down the high profile media route as I assume they thought that was the best way to get her back - the down side is that they have left themselves open to every theory that we can think off - not just here but in other forums as well

Unfortunatey in abduction by strangers the police literaly have no firm clues - there was probably enough to look at the mccaans closely and they would have been negligent in their job if they had not - but at present I still have not seen enough and so it seems have the police .

I suppose it is now just a waiting game until the next news story breaks

[SleuthMom]

so was robert Murat a suspect - but little has been written about him compared to the mountains of stuff on the mccaans -

I suppose because after all the searches they made on his apartment they never found anything, and that includes "cadaver" smell. The only reason Murrat still a suspect is because he changed his alibi (maybe out of fear, who knows). Nevertheless, nothing was "found" on him as compared to what was allegedly found on the Mc Canns. Hence, the shift in the investigation.

I know it has been repeated but the suspect thing in Portugal has to be done in order to question them from a legal basis - it is not the same as being charged - it can be almost the same as " helping police with their enquiries " as we often see in the UK .

Arguidos are given legal protection and can refuse to answer any question. At the same same, it also gives the police more freedom in the questioning process. I know it is not the same as being charged but hey, is not the same as being 100% sure that they are innocent. The fact they were made arguidos proves that there are CERTAIN things that just do not make sense in their testimonies/evidence that the police may have found on them.

The main fact is that the Mccaans are still sitting at home in in England - if the police had anything - anything that was firm and definite - they would be charged and taken on to the next stage .

Oh, I absolutely agree with you on this. I personally think they have some sort of evidence but not strong enough at the moment to do anything about it.

The Mccaans went down the high profile media route as I assume they thought that was the best way to get her back - the down side is that they have left themselves open to every theory that we can think off - not just here but in other forums as well

I think the Mc Canns are a very smart couple and they knew exactly how to used the Media to their advantage BUT I think they did not expected a change on the investigation this quick so now they are caught in the middle not knowing really how to use the same Media they once begged for help. Hence, you hear from them saying they do not want the focus to be on them BUT in finding Madeleine, yet they released wedding pics and communion pics of themselves which contradicts what they previously said.
Personally, I think they know exactly what they are doing and they knew some of the issues the Portuguese Police had as handling this case in the way it should have happened in the beginning and they took full advantage of it and they are now enjoying it because of certain mistakes done in the investigation they are now in a position where they cannot really be charged unless there is strong evidence against them. They tend to forget that no matter the outcome of this case, if Maddie is never found, they will always be seen with a mantle of suspicion.

Unfortunatey in abduction by strangers the police literaly have no firm clues - there was probably enough to look at the mccaans closely and they would have been negligent in their job if they had not - but at present I still have not seen enough and so it seems have the police .

I personally think they did not suspect the Mc Canns from day one at all. Again, two foreigners, British doctors, certain lifestyle...etc...people tend to commit the huge mistake of assuming based on looks or social status, when they did start suspecting them, I think it was a little too late.

I suppose it is now just a waiting game until the next news story breaks

I hate to be a pessimistic and I really hope I am wrong on this. I think Maddie will not be found and the Mc Canns will not be charged. It will be one of those cases that will literally remain in the air and an open investigation for years.

Little the guilty parts know that after this life, they DO have to give an account to someone bigger. :furious:

[Rino]

No, I don't believe they've denied it lately, but one of them did a while back. I don't recall them admitting it either. Is there a link for them admitting drugging the children, one we can trust?


Are there any you would trust ;)

[SleuthMom]

Are there any you would trust ;)

Now Rino, THAT'S a great question. Maybe those who believe in the Mc Cann's innocence can tell us what newspaper sources they are willing to believe or accept when we may want to share a piece of info with them. Thanks.

[AfterMidnight]

Are there any you would trust ;)

I would trust an Official statement by PLE, or an admission by the parents. I might trust the NY Times or the top British newspaper - not sure which one that is, since it seems we get a lot of quotes from less-than-stellar sources here. I would not trust sleezy tabloids or select titillating tidbits handfed to any news source without Official acknowledgment.

[Rino]

so was robert Murat a suspect - but little has been written about him compared to the mountains of stuff on the mccaans -



He was all over the press in the beginning and was the sole suspect for some length of time. With continued investigations, the McCanns were made suspects and he was taken off the list. So much for the absurd accusation that the police targeted the parents. :hand:

There is a mountain of difference btwn a predator who abducts others kids and parents who do harm to thier own. None of us here - I hope - and most people in the world are not predators and therefore are unable to feel any sympathy or bond with such a person. They are outcasts and societies bottom rung. No one ever suspects for a second they could do the same terrible act.

Most of us are parents or have children close to them that cannot fathom what would make a parent do something like this because we like to believe there is a common ground of decency, love, compassion we all share. Well, it is a fact that parents do kill. Statistics tell us most children are indeed harmed by family members. So actually they are even worse than the stranger predator, and harder to understand. Thats why so many cannot even bring themselves to question the McCanns - if the McCanns could do this, so could anyone. There really is no difference btwn the best and the worst if you only judge whats on the surface.

[gord]

He was all over the press in the beginning and was the sole suspect for some length of time. With continued investigations, the McCanns were made suspects and he was taken off the list. So much for the absurd accusation that the police targeted the parents. :hand:

There is a mountain of difference btwn a predator who abducts others kids and parents who do harm to thier own. None of us here - I hope - and most people in the world are not predators and therefore are unable to feel any sympathy or bond with such a person. They are outcasts and societies bottom rung. No one ever suspects for a second they could do the same terrible act.

Most of us are parents or have children close to them that cannot fathom what would make a parent do something like this because we like to believe there is a common ground of decency, love, compassion we all share. Well, it is a fact that parents do kill. Statistics tell us most children are indeed harmed by family members. So actually they are even worse than the stranger predator, and harder to understand. Thats why so many cannot even bring themselves to question the McCanns - if the McCanns could do this, so could anyone. There really is no difference btwn the best and the worst if you only judge whats on the surface.

Robert Murat is still an official Arguido - which can last for up to a year . He hast been taken of a list - granted focus has moved away from him to the Mccaans - but I hardly saw a th