PDA

View Full Version : Where is Madeleine? Where is she? - THREAD No. 2



colomom
03-13-2008, 09:56 AM
Please continue the discussion here.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/FindMM.jpg

Last thread is here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53160

Texana
03-13-2008, 01:34 PM
Thanks, Colomom!

april4sky
03-14-2008, 12:54 AM
McCanns take on the Express at last.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/greenslade/

Roy Greenslade / Analysis.......

It is all very well being obsessed by a story - that can often be of value - but to publish, day after day, contradictory and speculative articles based on anonymous sources and laced with innuendo is a disgrace.

Many of these stories were followed a day later with articles carrying denials. But the drip-drip-drip damage of the negative splash headlines was surely more influential.

**************
I believe so....anything for sales.

april4sky
03-14-2008, 01:19 AM
Divers restart search for Madeleine in Arade dam

http://portugalresident.com/portugalresident/showstory.asp?ID=25357

In response to a report printed in the British press, saying that Gerry and Kate McCann were not happy with this private operation, Marcos Aragão Correia told The Resident that “a contact was made with Metodo 3 to clarify that information and we can say it is false”.

He also said that “the family is not sponsoring the diving because they believe Madeleine is alive, but we are receiving support from Metodo 3, which means they are aware of everything.

colomom
03-14-2008, 02:08 PM
Update posted in the Portuguese press and on the General Discussion thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2054100&postcount=231

Salem
03-15-2008, 12:27 AM
So - initial checks of the bones show that the are animal bones. The PLE sure doesn't seem to be very interested. One article said the PLE only took a couple of bones and the rest were turned over to Metodo 3. Is that wierd?

I can not imagine LE here in the states conducting a search in such a manner unless they already had a strong indication that nothing would show up.

Salem

mjak
03-16-2008, 01:57 PM
This statement makes me skeptical of the Mcanns : "the family is not sponsoring the diving because they believe Madeleine is alive". I have always been on the fence regarding the McCanns. However, often I lean towards believing they are involved. When I read a statement like this I get a knott in the pit of my stomach because it is just not believable to me. These are intelligent people, they know the statistics. Of couse they should and will always hold out hope their daughter is aliave. However, to not be supportive of any seach effort because you believe your child maybe alive is nonsense to me. I can't imagine any other parents of missing children who's cases I have followed ever making a statement like that. The family members I have followed were anxious to follow up on any and all leeds no matter how horrible the potential outcome. Can you imagine Beth Twitty responding like this to any search efforts made on Natalee's behalf??

mjak

colomom
03-16-2008, 07:27 PM
This statement makes me skeptical of the Mcanns : "the family is not sponsoring the diving because they believe Madeleine is alive". I have always been on the fence regarding the McCanns. However, often I lean towards believing they are involved. When I read a statement like this I get a knott in the pit of my stomach because it is just not believable to me. These are intelligent people, they know the statistics. Of couse they should and will always hold out hope their daughter is aliave. However, to not be supportive of any seach effort because you believe your child maybe alive is nonsense to me. I can't imagine any other parents of missing children who's cases I have followed ever making a statement like that. The family members I have followed were anxious to follow up on any and all leeds no matter how horrible the potential outcome. Can you imagine Beth Twitty responding like this to any search efforts made on Natalee's behalf??

mjak

OH...my, my....oh h e l l yes....now, that's what I'm talkin' about.
:woohoo:

mjak
03-16-2008, 07:51 PM
OH...my, my....oh h e l l yes....now, that's what I'm talkin' about.
:woohoo:

It is statements like this that make me so insane. I want to believe in their innocence. Yet, when I think of the idiotic childchecking timeline and so many other things that never sat right with me and then read a statement like this what am I suppose to think?? I either have to think the mcanns are morons and just excuse this because of their own ineptness or believe they are not innocent people.

mjak
hanging on to the fence by a thread

colomom
03-16-2008, 08:12 PM
It is statements like this that make me so insane. I want to believe in their innocence. Yet, when I think of the idiotic childchecking timeline and so many other things that never sat right with me and then read a statement like this what am I suppose to think?? I either have to think the mcanns are morons and just excuse this because of their own ineptness or believe they are not innocent people.

mjak
hanging on to the fence by a thread

I completely understand how you feel mjak!

I have tried sooooo hard to give them the benefit of the doubt and excuse some of things I have seen reported as "ignorance" or "misinterpretation" or some other some-such but I keep coming back to things just like you outlined above. I am left shaking my head and wondering..."is it me? am I crazy?" And it is not just one thing, it is many, many, many things. The cumulative effect is very damning, IMO. I have never doubted my gut instinct so much until this case.

I would encourage you to stay on the fence mjak, I really think that is were we should be. I am not saying that I am there or that others are on the other side, it is just so difficult to say, one way or the other, what the truth is. The lies and manipulations by the media have completely erased any trust I had in them. It all starts with them and I place all suspicions I have right in their laps. They brought me to this place.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and beyond that it is pure speculation.

I do believe however that the truth will come out....someday.
:blowkiss:

mjak
03-16-2008, 08:20 PM
I completely understand how you feel mjak!

I have tried sooooo hard to give them the benefit of the doubt and excuse some of things I have seen reported as "ignorance" or "misinterpretation" or some other some-such but I keep coming back to things just like you outlined above. I am left shaking my head and wondering..."is it me? am I crazy?" And it is not just one thing, it is many, many, many things. The cumulative effect is very damning, IMO. I have never doubted my gut instinct so much until this case.

I would encourage you to stay on the fence mjak, I really think that is were we should be. I am not saying that I am there or that others are on the other side, it is just so difficult to say, one way or the other, what the truth is. The lies and manipulations by the media have completely erased any trust I had in them. It all starts with them and I place all suspicions I have right in their laps. They brought me to this place.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and beyond that it is pure speculation.

I do believe however that the truth will come out....someday.
:blowkiss:

I am in chat discussing Maddie if you want to join us.

mjak

ThoughtFox
03-17-2008, 01:52 AM
Even Metodo are now confirming the bones in the bag taken from the lake were from a small animal, not a child:
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_15596.shtml

A new Maddie sighting in Australia turned out to be false:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23389038-2,00.html


SYDNEY police were sent into a flutter today when a member of the public called in thinking they'd spotted missing British girl Madeleine McCann in the CBD.

Rail staff appeared to shadow a middle-aged man wearing a black beret and a little, blonde girl until police arrived at Town Hall train station to question the pair.

The Daily Telegraph spotted three police officers talking to the man and the girl at the Luneburger German Bakery underneath the Queen Victoria Building in the heart of the city.

But police say the report turned out to be a false alarm.

Shazza
03-17-2008, 05:28 AM
Even Metodo are now confirming the bones in the bag taken from the lake were from a small animal, not a child:
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_15596.shtml

A new Maddie sighting in Australia turned out to be false:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23389038-2,00.html

How I wish this could have been true, or any of the reported sightings. I still pray for Madelaine.

colomom
03-17-2008, 09:13 AM
I am in chat discussing Maddie if you want to join us.

mjak

Sorry I missed you mjak, didn't get in there until an hour after you posted. I did chat with a few others and I am always amazed how little Americans know about the "details" of this case.

I guess we don't sleuth this case as aggressively because we know that even if we did come to an agreement, it wouldn't matter squat to those who hold the reins.

Ahhhhh, well.

Rino
03-17-2008, 09:33 AM
This statement makes me skeptical of the Mcanns : "the family is not sponsoring the diving because they believe Madeleine is alive". I have always been on the fence regarding the McCanns. However, often I lean towards believing they are involved. When I read a statement like this I get a knott in the pit of my stomach because it is just not believable to me. These are intelligent people, they know the statistics. Of couse they should and will always hold out hope their daughter is aliave. However, to not be supportive of any seach effort because you believe your child maybe alive is nonsense to me. I can't imagine any other parents of missing children who's cases I have followed ever making a statement like that. The family members I have followed were anxious to follow up on any and all leeds no matter how horrible the potential outcome. Can you imagine Beth Twitty responding like this to any search efforts made on Natalee's behalf??

mjak
I understand, it also goes against Kates previous statements that she would rather know her daughter was dead than remain in limbo for the rest of her life. I personally found that statement cold at the time, but now it would seem to make sense. For Maddies sake rather than Kates, though.

colomom
03-17-2008, 10:34 AM
How I wish this could have been true, or any of the reported sightings. I still pray for Madelaine.

Hi Shazza!!!

Nice to see you :blowkiss:

Here is a bit more on the Australian sighting:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23388885-5001021,00.html

(picture in that story)

ThoughtFox
03-17-2008, 12:15 PM
Thanks for the picture, colomom! I wonder why that person drew attention? Was it just the way he was dressed or something he said to the child? She actually seems a little small to be Madeleine, but it's hard to tell.

colomom
03-17-2008, 02:20 PM
Thanks for the picture, colomom! I wonder why that person drew attention? Was it just the way he was dressed or something he said to the child? She actually seems a little small to be Madeleine, but it's hard to tell.

Isn't it ridiculous TF? Can you actually believe that people would think that she would look just like she did when she vanished? If someone would take her out in public, at least her hair would be dyed or cut or she would be dressed as a boy...

I agree, that little girl looks really small but I really have not seen any recent pictures of Madeleine with adults present. The only one is that playground picture with GM, but she is bending over. She does seem to be taller than the girl in the Australian picture, and heavier.

My friends over on the Proboards forum have joked that this guy was suspicious because of his black beret...too "swarthy" :rolleyes:

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa256/lvmyjob/St.png

Pinkhammer
03-17-2008, 09:27 PM
Almost a year now, and no closer to finding Maddie.

Very sad.

The sightings are ridiculous. I agree, she certainly would not look the same now, a year older.

Why haven't the McCanns had a time-progression picture done of her yet? Did they run out of money?

Texana
03-17-2008, 09:37 PM
Almost a year now, and no closer to finding Maddie.

Very sad.

The sightings are ridiculous. I agree, she certainly would not look the same now, a year older.

Why haven't the McCanns had a time-progression picture done of her yet? Did they run out of money?

We've asked that question more than once (the time progression or changed appearance photos) haven't we?

The one year date will be a sad one.

Shazza
03-18-2008, 03:47 AM
Hi Shazza!!!

Nice to see you :blowkiss:

Here is a bit more on the Australian sighting:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23388885-5001021,00.html

(picture in that story)

Hi colomom, nice to see you too, its been a while:blowkiss: .

Thanks for the link, as others have said she does look a little smaller than Madelaine.

I cannot believe it was the beret the guy was wearing that made them look suspicious, grasping at straws now.

I have backed off this thread for a while, still read all the time but imo it is no closer to finding Madelaine than it was when she first disappeared.

colomom
03-18-2008, 10:27 AM
Thanks for the picture, colomom! I wonder why that person drew attention? Was it just the way he was dressed or something he said to the child? She actually seems a little small to be Madeleine, but it's hard to tell.

Found this today:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/AussieMaddie.jpg

That little girl does not look a thing like Madeleine!! Not even close :rolleyes:

Trino
03-18-2008, 11:33 AM
Found this today:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/AussieMaddie.jpg

That little girl does not a thing like Madeleine!! Not even close :rolleyes:


This young girl looks nothing like Madeline. These "sightings" would make me nervous if I happened to have a young girl that age.

ThoughtFox
03-18-2008, 12:58 PM
It makes me sad that every time they see a dark-skinned man holding a blonde child, someone calls the police! :mad: My father had a dark tan all year round, but my sister and I are fair-skinned like our mother - that doesn't mean we aren't related! They need to study their genetics, I think.

Texana
03-18-2008, 10:04 PM
I' m afraid that every blond child around the ages of 4-7 is going to be suspect for many months and years to come.

Particularly if they are with a parent who does not look the same.

april4sky
03-18-2008, 10:58 PM
KATE AND GERRY MCCANN: SORRY

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38490/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-Sorry

The Daily Express today takes the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.

We acknowledge that there is no evidence
whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.

Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.
***********
About time IMO. I hope others have the guts....or rather fear of being sued to do the same.

colomom
03-19-2008, 11:23 AM
KATE AND GERRY MCCANN: SORRY

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38490/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-Sorry

The Daily Express today takes the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.

We acknowledge that there is no evidence
whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.

Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.
***********
About time IMO. I hope others have the guts....or rather fear of being sued to do the same.

Hi April,

There is alot more to this than meets the eye, it is not as simple as that article makes it seem.

This changes things - but not for the better for Clarence or the McCanns.
Clarence will now lose a lot of the pull he has had with the press - and the Mccanns are on the 'get revenge' list.
In the meantime the PJ are still ready to question them all. (thanks chrish)

And, BTW, since this entry does not really speak to where Madeleine is, wouldn't it be better placed in the General Discussion thread? Just asking.

(That said I have posted more on this story in the General Discussion thread)

Carmen29
03-20-2008, 02:38 AM
Hi everyone. Is there somewhere I can go to get all the details on this case and investigation?? The parents' website didnt say anything good at all.
Thanks

april4sky
03-20-2008, 03:21 AM
Hi April,

There is alot more to this than meets the eye, it is not as simple as that article makes it seem.

This changes things - but not for the better for Clarence or the McCanns.
Clarence will now lose a lot of the pull he has had with the press - and the Mccanns are on the 'get revenge' list.
In the meantime the PJ are still ready to question them all. (thanks chrish)

And, BTW, since this entry does not really speak to where Madeleine is, wouldn't it be better placed in the General Discussion thread? Just asking.

(That said I have posted more on this story in the General Discussion thread)Colomom if it changes things for the truth then I'm all for it. :)

As for Clarence having had pull with the press. Are you kidding? :rolleyes: Did you read the 100plus articles?

As for the questions...the sooner the better.:)

Salem
03-21-2008, 12:32 PM
For the paper to acknowledge that "there is no evidence, whatsoever" seems weird to me. After all, the McCanns have been named prime evidence. That means there is some evidence. Maybe not enough for charges/conviction, but there has to be something.......

Salem

colomom
03-21-2008, 01:20 PM
For the paper to acknowledge that "there is no evidence, whatsoever" seems weird to me. After all, the McCanns have been named prime evidence. That means there is some evidence. Maybe not enough for charges/conviction, but there has to be something.......

Salem

Absolutely right Salem. The paper cannot make such a statement as they are not privy to the police investigation.

And they KNOW it, and so do we ;)

april4sky
03-22-2008, 12:50 AM
For the paper to acknowledge that "there is no evidence, whatsoever" seems weird to me. After all, the McCanns have been named prime evidence. That means there is some evidence. Maybe not enough for charges/conviction, but there has to be something.......

SalemSalem the Portuguese police did not need any "evidence" against the McCanns at the time they named them arguedos. The law has changed since then and they would need "evidence" today. They may have had "suspicion" simply because the McCanns were the last people with Madeleine...even though thats not surprising as her parents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=500111&in_page_id=1770


The Attorney General of Portugal has also admitted that he does not know whether the McCanns would have been made suspects in light of the new penal code which came into force on September 15 - eight days after the parents were made arguidos.
Previously the police did not need to provide any evidence to justify their suspicions, but this has now changed under the new penal code.
Attorney General, Fernando Pinto Monteiro said: "The law did not demand justified suspicions at the time in which they were made 'arguidos'.
"I do not know if they would be in light of the new code."
Pinto de Abreu spoke out. He said: "After September 15, a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen to make him an arguido.
"Before September 15, it wasn't necessary. You could be made an arguido without any suspicions or evidence against you.
"Now to constitute anybody as an arguido it is necessary to have evidence in the file.
"That's why the national public prosecutor said that if this inquiry was launched now, maybe they would not have been made arguidos.
"Maybe that's why the inquiry happened then, why they were made arguidos eight days before the new laws came in." When Dr Carlos was asked whether he thought police acted deliberately as they knew the new law was coming in, he added: "I don't know if that's true, but yes, it's possible."
************
Salem the only reason the press settled out of court was because they new they couldn't back up any of the rumours, smears and nasty lies they printed....Sold their souls for sales. IMO

ThoughtFox
03-22-2008, 02:59 AM
Hi everyone. Is there somewhere I can go to get all the details on this case and investigation?? The parents' website didnt say anything good at all.
Thanks
Hi, Carmen. :) This is a good website for an overview and news:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/index.html

rashomon
03-22-2008, 08:10 AM
KATE AND GERRY MCCANN: SORRY

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38490/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-Sorry

The Daily Express today takes the unprecedented step of making a front-page apology to Kate and Gerry McCann.

We acknowledge that there is no evidence
whatsoever to support this theory and that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent of any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

As an expression of its regret, the Daily Express has now paid a very substantial sum into the Madeleine Fund and we promise to do all in our power to help efforts to find her.

Kate and Gerry, we are truly sorry to have added to your distress.
***********
About time IMO. I hope others have the guts....or rather fear of being sued to do the same.
I haven't read up on this case for a while.

Have the McCanns been officially cleared as suspects or not?

april4sky
03-22-2008, 09:10 AM
I haven't read up on this case for a while.

Have the McCanns been officially cleared as suspects or not?rashomon the McCanns are still arguedos. But at the time they were made arguedos the Portuguese police did not need any "evidence" against them. Suspicion was enough. The Portuguese arguedo law has been changed since then. They can't make somone an arguedo now without "evidence."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

*******
This article explains the changes and when it came into effect of Portugals new arguedo law.

colomom
03-22-2008, 09:58 AM
rashomon the McCanns are still arguedos. But at the time they were made arguedos the Portuguese police did not need any "evidence" against them. Suspicion was enough. The Portuguese arguedo law has been changed since then. They can't make somone an arguedo now without "evidence."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

*******
This article explains the changes and when it came into effect of Portugals new arguedo law.

So the PJ were only "suspicious" of the McCanns, is that right?

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/12/nosplit/nmaddy712.xml

"The 4,000 page dossier sent to the public prosecutor relies heavily on forensic results which police claim prove Madeleine’s DNA was found in the car hired by the McCanns 25 days after she went missing."

4000 pages of suspicions? I think not.

april4sky
03-22-2008, 11:03 AM
So the PJ were only "suspicious" of the McCanns, is that right?

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/12/nosplit/nmaddy712.xml

"The 4,000 page dossier sent to the public prosecutor relies heavily on forensic results which police claim prove Madeleine’s DNA was found in the car hired by the McCanns 25 days after she went missing."

4000 pages of suspicions? I think not.Yes colomom suspicions. The Judge doesn't appear to have been impressed with the 4000 pages. As for Madeleines DNA...it would have been found in the car...all her belongings were there:waitasec: . If there was DNA from a dead Madeleine you can be sure the PJ would have leaked it and probably arrested the McCanns by now.
If there was anything of substance...."evidence" in the "dossier" I doubt the PJ would have allowed the McCanns to leave Portugal in the first place. They could have requested the Judge to refuse them permission to leave.
And if they now have DNA from a dead Madeleine why haven't they presented a further dossier to the Judge?

Barnaby
03-22-2008, 11:09 AM
So the PJ were only "suspicious" of the McCanns, is that right?

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/12/nosplit/nmaddy712.xml

"The 4,000 page dossier sent to the public prosecutor relies heavily on forensic results which police claim prove Madeleine’s DNA was found in the car hired by the McCanns 25 days after she went missing."

4000 pages of suspicions? I think not.

I think not also Colomon. I believe they have a lot more than they are saying!

colomom
03-22-2008, 07:06 PM
Yes colomom suspicions. The Judge doesn't appear to have been impressed with the 4000 pages. As for Madeleines DNA...it would have been found in the car...all her belongings were there:waitasec: . If there was DNA from a dead Madeleine you can be sure the PJ would have leaked it and probably arrested the McCanns by now.
If there was anything of substance...."evidence" in the "dossier" I doubt the PJ would have allowed the McCanns to leave Portugal in the first place. They could have requested the Judge to refuse them permission to leave.
And if they now have DNA from a dead Madeleine why haven't they presented a further dossier to the Judge?

Sorry April, not buying it.

I read the articles that reported a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA. I believe the alerts of the dogs. The "evidence" of a cover up FAR outweighs the "evidence" of an abduction, IMO. If the judge was not "impressed" as you put it, the McCanns would have been released from their arguido status. 4000 pages of nothing, are you serious? 100 pages maybe but not 4000! Why haven't they been released from their arguido status? It works both ways.

You and I have NO IDEA how and why the PJ have conducted the investigation the way they have.

It is still a matter of time.....

Barnaby
03-22-2008, 11:04 PM
Sorry April, not buying it.

I read the articles that reported a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA. I believe the alerts of the dogs. The "evidence" of a cover up FAR outweighs the "evidence" of an abduction, IMO. If the judge was not "impressed" as you put it, the McCanns would have been released from their arguido status. 4000 pages of nothing, are you serious? 100 pages maybe but not 4000! Why haven't they been released from their arguido status? It works both ways.

You and I have NO IDEA how and why the PJ have conducted the investigation the way they have.

It is still a matter of time.....

ITA Colomon!

april4sky
03-22-2008, 11:19 PM
Sorry April, not buying it.

I read the articles that reported a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA. I believe the alerts of the dogs. The "evidence" of a cover up FAR outweighs the "evidence" of an abduction, IMO. If the judge was not "impressed" as you put it, the McCanns would have been released from their arguido status. 4000 pages of nothing, are you serious? 100 pages maybe but not 4000! Why haven't they been released from their arguido status? It works both ways.

You and I have NO IDEA how and why the PJ have conducted the investigation the way they have.

It is still a matter of time.....Sorry colomom, I'm not buying your version either.

Isn't it true that the PJ did not need "evidence" to make the McCanns, or in fact Murat arguedos at the time they did?

As for the DNA being 100% match to Madeleine...Well Yes!!! her belongings were in the car!! Did these articles say 100% match to a "dead" Madeleine...I don't think so:waitasec:
A critical distinction, wouldn't you agree?

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:slTODWssessJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296840,00.html+Portuguese+don%27t+know+if+M adeleine+is+dead&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=au
"Even if the blood and the traces gathered in the car and the apartment were confirmed to correspond 100 per cent with the little girl's DNA that would prove nothing," the officer is quoted as saying.
*********
If the PJ have DNA proof of Madeleine's "dead" body in the car...why haven't they amended their "dossier" and put it before the Judge again?....Mmmmm Probably because it doesn't exist!!! :waitasec:
In fact the Judge has said, as it stands, even with the 4000 plus pages he wasn't prepared to give the PJ permission to bring the McCanns in again. So I wouldn't think it contains "evidence." I doubt there's anything more than suspicion...and possibly theories!!
Can't be evidence, the PJ themselves have said they don't know if Madeleine is dead!!

As for the claims of a cover up, Geeez.....Colomom thats just more of the same ole same ole. File under Rumour, smears and speculation. :waitasec:

colomom
03-23-2008, 11:11 AM
Isn't it true that the PJ did not need "evidence" to make the McCanns, or in fact Murat arguedos at the time they did?

Do you realize that the McCanns and Murat could have made themselves arguidos? That would give them the ability to retain counsel and have them present during questioning as well as giving them the right to refuse to answer questions.


As for the DNA being 100% match to Madeleine...Well Yes!!! her belongings were in the car!! Did these articles say 100% match to a "dead" Madeleine...I don't think so:waitasec:
A critical distinction, wouldn't you agree?

Agreed, important distinction. Keeping in mind that this was the vehicle that was rented 30+ days after she disappeared.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/10/wmaddy111.xml

"Sources close to the case said the traces - understood to be blood - were being treated by Portuguese detectives as strong evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment before her body was placed in the car."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1283521,00.html

"Police searching the car also found so much of Madeleine's hair that it could not have been transferred from a blanket or clothes.
It must have come directly from her body, sources said.
The information came from senior sources in the investigation who briefed Portuguese journalists."

I can also mention the spray of cerebral fluid but I believe you will tell us about "smears, lies and innuendos". And the dogs? The cadaver scent in the apartment, in the car, on KM's clothes, the car keys, cuddle cat?

We have had this conversation too many times. At some point we will just need to agree to disagree.

april4sky
03-23-2008, 12:15 PM
Do you realize that the McCanns and Murat could have made themselves arguidos? That would give them the ability to retain counsel and have them present during questioning as well as giving them the right to refuse to answer questions.



Agreed, important distinction. Keeping in mind that this was the vehicle that was rented 30+ days after she disappeared.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/10/wmaddy111.xml

"Sources close to the case said the traces - understood to be blood - were being treated by Portuguese detectives as strong evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment before her body was placed in the car."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1283521,00.html

"Police searching the car also found so much of Madeleine's hair that it could not have been transferred from a blanket or clothes.
It must have come directly from her body, sources said.
The information came from senior sources in the investigation who briefed Portuguese journalists."

I can also mention the spray of cerebral fluid However, the officer spoken to by 24 Horas said: “Even if the blood and the traces gathered in the car and the apartment were confirmed to correspond 100 per cent with the little girl’s DNA that would prove nothing. And the dogs? The cadaver scent in the apartment, in the car, on KM's clothes, the car keys, cuddle cat?

We have had this conversation too many times. At some point we will just need to agree to disagree.Yes I was aware the McCanns and Murat could have chosen the arguedo option but it has no bearing as to the PJ's not requiring evidence against them at the time.

DNA..Makes no odds when the car was rented. Madeleine's belongings and therefore her DNA would still have been with her family.

Blood..I don't believe it's been confirmed that the blood in the apartment was from Madeleine's.

Hair...The PJ haven't confirmed hair found was Madeleine's. And according to Dr Baden on Greta it would be easy to confirm within minutes of testing if the hair was from a dead body. The PJ would have arrested the McCanns by now if it was so.

Colomom I will continue to mention rumours, smears and inuendo as long as I think thats what is happening. I find it very cruel to the parents of a missing child.

I agree with your last sentence. We will never agree and we have done the cadavers before. I agree they are good......but not perfect without a body.

colomom
03-23-2008, 03:04 PM
Yes I was aware the McCanns and Murat could have chosen the arguedo option but it has no bearing as to the PJ's not requiring evidence against them at the time.

I don't understand what difference it makes in how the McCanns became arguidos....



DNA..Makes no odds when the car was rented. Madeleine's belongings and therefore her DNA would still have been with her family.
Blood..I don't believe it's been confirmed that the blood in the apartment was from Madeleine's.

The 100% match came from DNA which was from blood which was from the car, not the apartment.



Hair...The PJ haven't confirmed hair found was Madeleine's. And according to Dr Baden on Greta it would be easy to confirm within minutes of testing if the hair was from a dead body. The PJ would have arrested the McCanns by now if it was so.

The PJ have not confirmed very much of anything. How do you know how the PJ would conduct their investigation? It could just as easily be a matter of accumulating enough evidence to insure a airtight case.



Colomom I will continue to mention rumours, smears and inuendo as long as I think thats what is happening. I find it very cruel to the parents of a missing child.

So, is that what you think about the cerebral fluid that has been widely reported?



I agree with your last sentence. We will never agree and we have done the cadavers before. I agree they are good......but not perfect without a body.


I believe that the statistics on these dogs indicate a perfect record with somewhere around 200-300 cases. Chances are highly unlikely they would mess up on this case, and only this case.

april4sky
03-24-2008, 02:32 AM
I don't understand what difference it makes in how the McCanns became arguidos....
The 100% match came from DNA which was from blood which was from the car, not the apartment.

The PJ have not confirmed very much of anything. How do you know how the PJ would conduct their investigation? It could just as easily be a matter of accumulating enough evidence to insure a airtight case.

So, is that what you think about the cerebral fluid that has been widely reported?

I believe that the statistics on these dogs indicate a perfect record with somewhere around 200-300 cases. Chances are highly unlikely they would mess up on this case, and only this case.Colomom my only point regarding the arguedo laws was that the PJ did not need "evidence" to name someone an arguedo until very recently.

If there was blood samples taken from the car there has been no confirmation that it was Madeleines. I believe all the results from all of the tests were reported by the PJ to have been inconclusive. As some of the PJ do not believe the secrecy laws apply to them:waitasec: You can bet we would know by now if they had proof Madeleine's "body" had been in the car or the apartment!!

Oh I think we know how the PJ have run this investigation. :waitasec: We know they bungled the investigation from the beginning. Even failed the most basic of police work...By not securing the crime scene....or the car. And then of course there are the many malicious rumours, many of them leaked by some of the PJ themselves.....Those damned secrecy laws again!!!

As for the cerebral fluid being widely reported. A lot of claims have been widely reported...Never confirmed...and "ALL" tests from the car, and I think the apartment, were reported to be inconclusive. If any of the tests proved Madeleine's dead body had been in the car or apartment the PJ would have all the evidence they need to add to their dossier and submit it again to the Judge.

Colomom could you provide a link please that shows cadaver dogs have a perfect record......Hopefully it will include the success rate when "No body" was present....This makes a BIG difference from articles I have read.

colomom
03-24-2008, 10:02 AM
Colomom could you provide a link please that shows cadaver dogs have a perfect record......Hopefully it will include the success rate when "No body" was present....This makes a BIG difference from articles I have read.

Google this: eddie keela success rate

I have seen it mentioned in numerous places.

Kids are out on Spring Break, my time is very limited.

Barnaby
03-24-2008, 06:03 PM
^^^^^

I googled eddie Keela success rate, seems like quite a few articles are reporting that it is 100%

Texana
03-24-2008, 09:34 PM
Let's compare the success rate of either cadaver dogs in general, or even better, Keela's success rate, to that of humans making eyewitness identification.

I'll bet on the dogs being bette.r

april4sky
03-24-2008, 09:47 PM
Google this: eddie keela success rate

I have seen it mentioned in numerous places.

Kids are out on Spring Break, my time is very limited.Colomom I googled the above as you suggested. But I did not find any official statistics to support the Perfect Record of either Eddie or Keela.

I did find plenty of blogs where the 100% success rate was discussed. But where they got their information from is anyones guess.

colomom
03-25-2008, 10:32 AM
April,

You refuse to consider (or give credence to) anything damning unless it is an official statistic and yet in the thread below you think we should look at "all the rumours, smears and inuendo", which, by the way, is only YOUR opinion as nothing has been officially proved to be rumors, smears or innuendo.

You are making me dizzy.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2075519&postcount=25

"Texana I believe part of your sentence gives us a clue. In hindsight and after the press have now admitted their part in the smears. Going back is a good idea, but it should also include looking again at all the rumours, smears and inuendo."

april4sky
03-25-2008, 11:27 AM
April,

You refuse to consider (or give credence to) anything damning unless it is an official statistic and yet in the thread below you think we should look at "all the rumours, smears and inuendo", which, by the way, is only YOUR opinion as nothing has been officially proved to be rumors, smears or innuendo.

You are making me dizzy.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2075519&postcount=25

"Texana I believe part of your sentence gives us a clue. In hindsight and after the press have now admitted their part in the smears. Going back is a good idea, but it should also include looking again at all the rumours, smears and inuendo."Colomom thats because we have not seen any "evidence" that is damning. Opinion has nothing to do with it.

You keep saying you believe the PJ have "evidence". Well if they have, none of us know what it is. Even they have said they don't know if Madeleine is dead!!!

What is your problem with official statistics? You told us the cadaver dogs had a perfect rate....Whats the use of that if it can't be verified?
And why anyone should have to prove rumours, smears, and inuendo against them is false is beyond me. I wonder why the mention of it bothers you so much.

We know it's happened.....Many many times...And now even the press have admitted to it. And paid a high price!!! Which is why it's very important to have confirmation, and yes even statistics.

Could it be all the rumours that are making you dizzy? :waitasec:

colomom
03-25-2008, 12:02 PM
Damning Evidence

1. Eddie and Keela alerting to blood and death in the car & apartment & on clothes, keys and toy.

2. Blood/Bodily Fluid proved to be Madeleine's, 100%.

3. No evidence of an abduction, none.

4. The mysterious item reported as: something found where it should not have been,and one stand alone piece of evidence. (Martin Brunt)

These are the main pieces that have been reported and acknowledged by LE. There are many other things that have been reported and have a ring of truth or are very difficult to disprove. It has also been reported that there is evidence that we, or the press, have no idea about. I will not list all of them here as I believe you would find them to be "rumors, smears and innuendo" which would only be your opinion.

I do not "have a problem", and nothing "bothers me so much" and it is not the so-called rumors that are making me dizzy.

Interesting article: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b57_1189497827

ThoughtFox
03-25-2008, 02:43 PM
Let's compare the success rate of either cadaver dogs in general, or even better, Keela's success rate, to that of humans making eyewitness identification.

I'll bet on the dogs being bette.r
One thing's for sure - these cadavers wouldn't be found just by humans alone. Especially when they are buried under rubble or dirt (as in graves).

Humans: o%
Dogs: 100%

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/tiere/animal-smiley-031.gif

Texana
03-25-2008, 04:22 PM
Hmm. Now I feel motivated to look at Kate's words again.

april4sky
03-26-2008, 03:09 AM
Damning Evidence

1. Eddie and Keela alerting to blood and death in the car & apartment & on clothes, keys and toy.

2. Blood/Bodily Fluid proved to be Madeleine's, 100%.

3. No evidence of an abduction, none.

4. The mysterious item reported as: something found where it should not have been,and one stand alone piece of evidence. (Martin Brunt)

These are the main pieces that have been reported and acknowledged by LE. There are many other things that have been reported and have a ring of truth or are very difficult to disprove. It has also been reported that there is evidence that we, or the press, have no idea about. I will not list all of them here as I believe you would find them to be "rumors, smears and innuendo" which would only be your opinion.

I do not "have a problem", and nothing "bothers me so much" and it is not the so-called rumors that are making me dizzy.

Interesting article: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b57_1189497827


1. Cadaver dogs....which would include Eddie and Keela....are not perfect. And most importantly not perfect when there is no body. http://www.slate.com/id/2174177 (http://www.slate.com/id/2174177)

2. Blood and Bodily Fluid found to be 100% Madeleine's....I don't think so....Can you provide a link please that confirms this was from a dead Madeleine...A crucial difference for evidence as all her belongings had been in the apartment and car. And my understanding is that all of the tests were inconclusive.

3. No evidence of an abduction, none.......This is the strangest one yet!! How can no evidence be damning evidence?
There is also the important point of the PJ bungling this case....Basic police work again....not sealing off a crime scene. Neither the apartment nor the car were properly investigated for a long time.

4. Sorry Colomom you lost me on number 4.

Colomom I will honestly hold my hands up if the PJ show evidence that the McCanns killed Madeleine.
But I don't believe your list contains any evidence, either damning or otherwise.

I would be interested to know if you will hold your hands up too if it turns out the PJ confirm they have no damning evidence against the McCanns and end their arguedo status?....It seems to be enough regarding Murat.

teacherbees
03-26-2008, 09:39 AM
april, I know you asked Colomom the question, but I'm going to also take a stab at answering you.

I will always have a suspicion that the McCanns were somehow involved in their daughter's death....at least, until VERY conclusive evidence otherwise turns up.

What would that be? A confession from some other person or person or finding the body with DNA and/or other evidence that points away from the McCanns.
Of course, Madeline being found alive would also be a wonderful turn of events, though i personally do not believe she's alive. (Even so, I do pray that if she is alive that she will be found.)

Why would I have such a hard time taking the McCanns out of possible suspect status? I'm a look at the whole picture type of person. In my mind, the McCanns have done too many things that make them look like possible suspsects.

I don't care what Kate dresses like or whether she runs every day and even whether Gerry is able to blog daily, with rather blithe references to everything but the horror of his baby girl being missing. None of that makes them suspects in my book.

However, I do look at human nature and find the McCanns behavior extremely strange in some regards. Here are some of my biggest hinky points -

1. If they truly went through the terrorizing experience of having a child snatched from them, I don't think they'd be IMMEDIATELY leaving their two other babies in the care of strangers in a strange country. We've gone over and over this point...but I think it rings true.
2. Their constantly conflicting statements (along with the other Tapas members) regarding the basic timeline and what happened that night. People who have nothing to hide don't lie and change their story.
3. Some of their ridiculous explanatory statements. The biggest example of this is Kate's trying to make us believe that she took Maddie's favorite Cuddle Cat to work with her, exposing it to dead bodies. Say what???? She'd let the toy come in contact with cadavers and not wash it before giving it back to her kid? And then, when that same little girl is missing and presumed dead, she'd think nothing of washing one of the last things her daughter touched and left her "essence" on. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
4. Refusal to cooperate with authorities. I don't even mind that they lawyered up (though i find it a bit odd), but making it so difficult to be re-interviewed and questioned is ridiculous. I think every mother and father here on this board would probably tell you they'd be knocking down the doors of the police station to get answers if their child went missing - assuming they were innocent.
5. Once again, until directly disputed, I believe the stories regarding the findings of the cadaver dogs. And, no I don't believe the scent they picked up on was from items of Maddie's when she was alive. The dogs are trained specifically to pick up CADAVER odor.

I could actually go on, but I have to get my son to school. I'm sure Colomom will come along and give you an excellent, well-thought out answer to your question.

You know, April, I don't want to believe that any parent could kill their child, even accidentally and then cover it up. But I also am not going to stick my head in the sand and refuse to see anything that might point a finger of suspicion at Kate and Gerry.

colomom
03-26-2008, 10:29 AM
1. Cadaver dogs....which would include Eddie and Keela....are not perfect. And most importantly not perfect when there is no body. http://www.slate.com/id/2174177 (http://www.slate.com/id/2174177)

2. Blood and Bodily Fluid found to be 100% Madeleine's....I don't think so....Can you provide a link please that confirms this was from a dead Madeleine...A crucial difference for evidence as all her belongings had been in the apartment and car. And my understanding is that all of the tests were inconclusive.

3. No evidence of an abduction, none.......This is the strangest one yet!! How can no evidence be damning evidence?
There is also the important point of the PJ bungling this case....Basic police work again....not sealing off a crime scene. Neither the apartment nor the car were properly investigated for a long time.

4. Sorry Colomom you lost me on number 4.

Colomom I will honestly hold my hands up if the PJ show evidence that the McCanns killed Madeleine.
But I don't believe your list contains any evidence, either damning or otherwise.

I would be interested to know if you will hold your hands up too if it turns out the PJ confirm they have no damning evidence against the McCanns and end their arguedo status?....It seems to be enough regarding Murat.

The difficulty I have in answering your rebuttal April is due to your requirement that I provide you with irrefutable, conclusive, incontestable, official documentation that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Madeleine is dead. You know, as well as I do, that this is not possible. In this case it is essential that all information be considered. We cannot hold a hand up and say that we will not consider information unless it is definite. Wouldn't be proper sleuthing now, would it?

I have tried, repeatedly to outline the numerous inconsistencies and press reports that point toward a logical conclusion. I have made list after list of details that when considered, as a whole, show that it is very possible that the McCanns had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance on May 3rd 2007. Even if that "something" is the simple fact that they left her vulnerable and exposed in such a callous manner. My gut feelings about this case have been expressed but, I do not believe that I have ever stated that I am convinced that the McCanns killed their daughter.

I have asked many times that those who honestly believe that the McCanns had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance to please provide press reports or even logical theory that points in a different direction. While some have offered explanations, they are very easy to discount, IMO. I want to see something, one thing, anything, that makes me think that an abduction is possible. When I mention that there is no evidence of an abduction this is what I am talking about. Just one thing, jimmied shutters, fingerprints, footprint, eye witness (don't even think of mentioning JT) would make a huge difference in how I "see" this case. I am still waiting. I would prefer a number of details that when considered together show that it is not logical to look toward the parents, since that is what I have attempted to do.

Rather than defend, defend, defend can you put together some documentation or theory that can really show how the McCanns must be innocent of any involvement?

Do you honestly believe that I would not acknowledge a bad judgement on my part if the McCanns are proved to be blameless? Like it or not, your question is insulting.

As far as your asking for "links" or your being "lost" on number 4, I have one word for you.....google.

colomom
03-26-2008, 10:32 AM
~snipped a very good post~

I could actually go on, but I have to get my son to school. I'm sure Colomom will come along and give you an excellent, well-thought out answer to your question.
:blowkiss:

You know, April, I don't want to believe that any parent could kill their child, even accidentally and then cover it up. But I also am not going to stick my head in the sand and refuse to see anything that might point a finger of suspicion at Kate and Gerry.

Me neither!!

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
03-26-2008, 10:43 AM
april, I know you asked Colomom the question, but I'm going to also take a stab at answering you....snipped for space


1. If they truly went through the terrorizing experience of having a child snatched from them, I don't think they'd be IMMEDIATELY leaving their two other babies in the care of strangers in a strange country. We've gone over and over this point...but I think it rings true.
2. Their constantly conflicting statements (along with the other Tapas members) regarding the basic timeline and what happened that night. People who have nothing to hide don't lie and change their story.
3. Some of their ridiculous explanatory statements. The biggest example of this is Kate's trying to make us believe that she took Maddie's favorite Cuddle Cat to work with her, exposing it to dead bodies. Say what???? She'd let the toy come in contact with cadavers and not wash it before giving it back to her kid? And then, when that same little girl is missing and presumed dead, she'd think nothing of washing one of the last things her daughter touched and left her "essence" on. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
4. Refusal to cooperate with authorities. I don't even mind that they lawyered up (though i find it a bit odd), but making it so difficult to be re-interviewed and questioned is ridiculous. I think every mother and father here on this board would probably tell you they'd be knocking down the doors of the police station to get answers if their child went missing - assuming they were innocent.
5. Once again, until directly disputed, I believe the stories regarding the findings of the cadaver dogs. And, no I don't believe the scent they picked up on was from items of Maddie's when she was alive. The dogs are trained specifically to pick up CADAVER odor.

snip...
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Excellent post. I agree completely. Though I'm sure points 4 & 5 will have many rebuttals from some, (as usual :rolleyes: ), Points 1,2 & 3 are totally enough to get my hinky meter going. Any disagreement on those points always come from those who think it was fine to leave the children alone to begin with, (and we know where their priorities are), and it's not for the welfare of children.

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
03-26-2008, 10:57 AM
1. Cadaver dogs....which would include Eddie and Keela....are not perfect. And most importantly not perfect when there is no body. http://www.slate.com/id/2174177 (http://www.slate.com/id/2174177)

2. Blood and Bodily Fluid found to be 100% Madeleine's....I don't think so....Can you provide a link please that confirms this was from a dead Madeleine...A crucial difference for evidence as all her belongings had been in the apartment and car. And my understanding is that all of the tests were inconclusive.

3. No evidence of an abduction, none.......This is the strangest one yet!! How can no evidence be damning evidence?
There is also the important point of the PJ bungling this case....Basic police work again....not sealing off a crime scene. Neither the apartment nor the car were properly investigated for a long time.

4. Sorry Colomom you lost me on number 4.

Colomom I will honestly hold my hands up if the PJ show evidence that the McCanns killed Madeleine.
But I don't believe your list contains any evidence, either damning or otherwise.

I would be interested to know if you will hold your hands up too if it turns out the PJ confirm they have no damning evidence against the McCanns and end their arguedo status?....It seems to be enough regarding Murat.

Hold on just a minute here honey. The crime scene was totally trashed and contaminated before the PJ where even called. The McCanns had 7 of their closest friends looking under the same beds and looking in the same closets for AT LEAST 20 minutes before the cops got there. THEY where responsible for destroying any evidence.

Even stranger is they all looked in the apartment, even though Jane Tanner saw a man carrying Madeline away. She didn't bother to tell anyone until later when the police got there. She stayed inside looking under the damn bed, when she later admitted she had seen Madeleine being carried away by a creepy, egg shaped man. Good grief, it was a mad house before the cops ever got there.:mad:

NewMommy09
03-26-2008, 11:39 AM
Sorry guys, this is O/T, but would some of you check out the thread in my sig, and let me know if you think this child looks like missing child Acacia Bishop? Thanks.

april4sky
03-26-2008, 12:14 PM
The difficulty I have in answering your rebuttal April is due to your requirement that I provide you with irrefutable, conclusive, incontestable, official documentation that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Madeleine is dead. You know, as well as I do, that this is not possible. In this case it is essential that all information be considered. We cannot hold a hand up and say that we will not consider information unless it is definite. Wouldn't be proper sleuthing now, would it?

I have tried, repeatedly to outline the numerous inconsistencies and press reports that point toward a logical conclusion. I have made list after list of details that when considered, as a whole, show that it is very possible that the McCanns had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance on May 3rd 2007. Even if that "something" is the simple fact that they left her vulnerable and exposed in such a callous manner. My gut feelings about this case have been expressed but, I do not believe that I have ever stated that I am convinced that the McCanns killed their daughter.

I have asked many times that those who honestly believe that the McCanns had absolutely nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance to please provide press reports or even logical theory that points in a different direction. While some have offered explanations, they are very easy to discount, IMO. I want to see something, one thing, anything, that makes me think that an abduction is possible. When I mention that there is no evidence of an abduction this is what I am talking about. Just one thing, jimmied shutters, fingerprints, footprint, eye witness (don't even think of mentioning JT) would make a huge difference in how I "see" this case. I am still waiting. I would prefer a number of details that when considered together show that it is not logical to look toward the parents, since that is what I have attempted to do.

Rather than defend, defend, defend can you put together some documentation or theory that can really show how the McCanns must be innocent of any involvement?

Do you honestly believe that I would not acknowledge a bad judgement on my part if the McCanns are proved to be blameless? Like it or not, your question is insulting.

As far as your asking for "links" or your being "lost" on number 4, I have one word for you.....google.Colomom as to question 4...I have googled.
As to my question...I honestly don't know, which was why I asked. Not to insult..Apologies if you felt insulted. But its not so surprising when anything that is favourable to the McCanns is never acknowleged as such. ie. DNA reported as inconclusive, to articles from experts refuting the success rates re-cadavers. To the 100 plus press articles which we now know beyond any doubt smeared the McCanns. You did say all information should be considered.

I think you went a bit over the top with the above list of requirements. Not true. :rolleyes: Maybe an official from the PJ, not a source, confirming they have proof of the claims would do it...Sorry but I don't think its unreasonable to not accept rumours as fact.

It's not possible for us to provide proof that Madeleine was abducted. Just as its not possible to prove she wasn't. We know now the press don't know either way, and I seriously doubt the PJ do.

As for theory, I believe an abduction would have been easy. And much more believable than the theory that her parents carried her body around with them in the car, weeks after she went missing. Thats just to much of a stretch for me.
Abduction is much more likely IMO. Especially if someone had been watching the McCanns movements that week and watched them leave. It would have taken only moments for someone to enter the apartment and take Madeleine...and not leave fingerprints by wearing gloves...If they left by the door, as has been suggested before, the window would not have been damaged.

As I have said before I have seen no evidence to make me believe the McCanns killed Madeleine. And I am more convinced than ever since the press admission.



It's impossible to provide documentation as you put it, either way. I always thought it was up to the police to collect evidence. :confused: But confirmation of "evidence" from the PJ to seperate fact from rumour is very different, and essential if we want the truth. Especially when arguedos cannot defend themselves by confirming their statements due to those pesky secrecy laws.

daffodil
03-26-2008, 01:48 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Excellent post. I agree completely. Though I'm sure points 4 & 5 will have many rebuttals from some, (as usual :rolleyes: ), Points 1,2 & 3 are totally enough to get my hinky meter going. Any disagreement on those points always come from those who think it was fine to leave the children alone to begin with, (and we know where their priorities are), and it's not for the welfare of children.


That post just makes me soooo angry.I think you need to be careful with lumping those who believe the McCanns innocent, as a group who think it ok to leave the children alone:furious: .I havent read ANY poster say it was right to leave them alone,not one, so please do not judge others OR their priorities.:slap:

Salem
03-26-2008, 01:51 PM
More than one case has been built and prosecuted, successfully, on circumstantial evidence alone, and in this case there is no lack of circumstantial evidence.

Like teacherbee - I don't care about the jogging, the makeup, the blogging, but I do care about:

1. The initial lie regarding the shutters - why would you say they had been jimmied, when in fact, and yes I believe this is a FACT, they had not? So - why would you say this? To throw the police off the trail?

2. Why can not 9 people get the timeline right? If a child was really missing and no one was lying, between 9 people, you should be able to pull enough accurate information to come up with a fairly consistent timeline. Given that everyone had been drinking and they were probably in a high state of "emotion" some inconsistencies would be understandable. However, between the NINE of them, there should have been enough to compile a fairly accurate timeline.

3. Leaving the children alone AFTER being advised not too. I don't have links to all the old articles, but a woman who works for Mark Warner was QUOTED as having advised the McCanns not to leave the children.

4. Why would you leave the children AFTER your neighbor had complained about their crying? WHY? Is this also smear and rumor? I think not, the old woman was QUOTED. And when she said she "never said that" she was saying she never said the ADDITIONAL smears that were attributed to her. However, she never backed down from her story of the children crying. I take this a FACT, not opinion, rumor or smear, but just plain FACT.

5. I believe the dogs are ALWAYS right. The problem is that they can't talk and we humans don't always understand what they are trying to tell us. However, in this case, I see the dogs as particularly damning to the McCanns.

6. Why, if your child was missing, would you refuse to answer questions the police asked? Even if you had been doing something that might not have reflected well on your reputation, wouldn't you just ask the police for some discretion on what was leaked to the press so that you could tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? After all, what good is your reputation, money, status if your child is lost???? This makes me think of the VanDams and the loss of their daughter, and yet they held their heads up and moved forward because the bottom line was that they wanted their daughter back. The McCanns don't have to be like the VanDams, but the McCanns lack of honesty and full disclosure is damning in my opinion.

7. Why would you leave your children alone if you thought someone was watching you? The McCanns are QUOTED as saying they believed they were being watched. If that is true, then they set their children up for what happened. How do you excuse that? The McCanns have ADMITTED this. How do you excuse that?

8. Why has it been so difficult for the PLE to re-interview the Tapas 9? If anyone of them was really concerned about what happened to Maddie, they would have found a way to make themselves available to the PLE without all this dancing around.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind here. I think it is prefectly fine that we have several trains of thought going on. This is a complex case, made more so by the lack of honesty on the parts of the family involved. Please also keep in mind that the evidence collected against the McCanns was collected with the help of British LE. It seems to me that the PLE were not so convinced of the McCanns complicity in this case until after the ENGLISH came to help them collect additional evidence from the apartment. In the beginning, I really believe the PLE wanted to believe this was a case of abduction.

So blaming all the "smears and rumors" on the PLE is inconsistent with the timeline of events as we watched them play out in the media. And, I'm going to wait to see how this plays out because I have a feeling the McCanns are going to have pay back that "defamation" award they recently won from the Daily Express.

So, that's my rant for the day :rolleyes:

Salem

colomom
03-26-2008, 03:25 PM
That post just makes me soooo angry.I think you need to be careful with lumping those who believe the McCanns innocent, as a group who think it ok to leave the children alone:furious: .I havent read ANY poster say it was right to leave them alone,not one, so please do not judge others OR their priorities.:slap:

I do not see where IW was referring specifically to posters here at WS.

I have seen many posts around the internet where people have defended what the McCanns did by saying they had done the exact same thing themselves. In other words, what they did was perfectly fine. They often are the same people who believe the McCanns are innocent of any involvement with Madeleine's disappearance. However, I did not see where IW said that "those who believe the McCanns innocent, as a group who think it ok to leave the children alone". While I agree that the word always should not apply, I can see how she might think that people who would defend leaving the twins with strangers, people who would lie and change their stories or people who would offer laughable explanations might indeed, be the same people who would defend the initial neglect of the McCann children. That is a logical conclusion.

At any rate I don't see it as being an attack, just an opinion. It is not a judgement, it is an opinion.

april4sky
03-27-2008, 03:45 AM
april, I know you asked Colomom the question, but I'm going to also take a stab at answering you.

I will always have a suspicion that the McCanns were somehow involved in their daughter's death....at least, until VERY conclusive evidence otherwise turns up.

What would that be? A confession from some other person or person or finding the body with DNA and/or other evidence that points away from the McCanns.
Of course, Madeline being found alive would also be a wonderful turn of events, though i personally do not believe she's alive. (Even so, I do pray that if she is alive that she will be found.)

Why would I have such a hard time taking the McCanns out of possible suspect status? I'm a look at the whole picture type of person. In my mind, the McCanns have done too many things that make them look like possible suspsects.

I don't care what Kate dresses like or whether she runs every day and even whether Gerry is able to blog daily, with rather blithe references to everything but the horror of his baby girl being missing. None of that makes them suspects in my book.

However, I do look at human nature and find the McCanns behavior extremely strange in some regards. Here are some of my biggest hinky points -

1. If they truly went through the terrorizing experience of having a child snatched from them, I don't think they'd be IMMEDIATELY leaving their two other babies in the care of strangers in a strange country. We've gone over and over this point...but I think it rings true.
2. Their constantly conflicting statements (along with the other Tapas members) regarding the basic timeline and what happened that night. People who have nothing to hide don't lie and change their story.
3. Some of their ridiculous explanatory statements. The biggest example of this is Kate's trying to make us believe that she took Maddie's favorite Cuddle Cat to work with her, exposing it to dead bodies. Say what???? She'd let the toy come in contact with cadavers and not wash it before giving it back to her kid? And then, when that same little girl is missing and presumed dead, she'd think nothing of washing one of the last things her daughter touched and left her "essence" on. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
4. Refusal to cooperate with authorities. I don't even mind that they lawyered up (though i find it a bit odd), but making it so difficult to be re-interviewed and questioned is ridiculous. I think every mother and father here on this board would probably tell you they'd be knocking down the doors of the police station to get answers if their child went missing - assuming they were innocent.
5. Once again, until directly disputed, I believe the stories regarding the findings of the cadaver dogs. And, no I don't believe the scent they picked up on was from items of Maddie's when she was alive. The dogs are trained specifically to pick up CADAVER odor.

I could actually go on, but I have to get my son to school. I'm sure Colomom will come along and give you an excellent, well-thought out answer to your question.

You know, April, I don't want to believe that any parent could kill their child, even accidentally and then cover it up. But I also am not going to stick my head in the sand and refuse to see anything that might point a finger of suspicion at Kate and Gerry.teacherbees thank you for your very honest answer. It's more or less what I thought quite a few posters would feel, even if the McCanns arguedo status is removed.

As to the highlight above. I think what you said shows you do care. From the word "but" shows what you feel, and possibly colours your view of them.

In answer to your points.
1. It's all to easy to judge but none of us know what we would do in such terror. I hope none of us are ever tested!!
2. Conflicting statements...We don't know their statements...They are not allowed to discuss them as they are still gagged due to secrecy laws!!
3. Who knows if any of it is true. We haven't heard Kate. We may have heard others via the press..Mmmm. I would like to hear Kate herself.
4. Again we only have the PJ's version. The Inspecter at that time is now on criminal charges himself due to his handling in a different missing child case. And why hasn't the new man in charge asked to re-interview the McCanns?
5. Believing is a choice we are all entitled to. Not evidence!! My choice is not to judge them through the filter of leaks rumours and smears. We need to hear them.

No one could take the amount of abuse let alone smears this couple have had to endure....and at a time when their child is missing....and come out smelling of roses.
It doesn't make them guilty of anything but making what turned out to be a tragic decision.

Not sure who you think has their head in the sand :rolleyes:
I can assure you I haven't. I want to know the real truth....Even if it turns out to be the McCanns. It's not unreasonable to want to seperate the truth from the rumours. Rumours don't help anyone...Least of all Madeleine...who has sadly been forgotten because of them. IMO.

teacherbees thanks again for answering my question. :)

Salem
04-21-2008, 11:07 AM
Oh where oh where, has little Maddie gone? With her shoes left home and her hair shiny blonde, oh where oh where has little Maddie gone?

May Maddie come home soon!

Salem

Salem
07-19-2008, 07:39 PM
Maddie, honey - if you can at all, now would be a good time to reveal yourself. We would very much like to find you or have someone find you and bring you home, sweetie. So, if you can, please try to let us know where you are and someone will come for you.

Salem