Have you donated to "The Fund"

Donjeta said:

I do hope that someone can provide a link because I'm not finding it.
I googled McCanns and "not suspected of any involvement" and could only find anonymous blog comments to the effect or unrelated quotes.

Any idea what the actual wording was?

The PJ files that were linked here a few days ago didn't convince me since they let it so much up in the air what happened but implied that e.g. negligent homicide had not been ruled out. I'm not really seeing any other suspects in a negligent homicide except the parents or other caretakers.

Click to expand...

They were never charged of anything - so not sure how you can be cleared of a crime you were never even charged with,

Only juries clear people in crimes when they reach court , All Police do isd present the evidence to the judicary who then decide if they are going to proceed.

The Mcanns will always be tainted by this and that is the nature of the beast - even if they were cleared by a court then many people would not be satisfied.

All you can do is work with the laws of the land. I am no expert of Portugese criminal law or int ins and outs of Arguido status -

Listen if evidence surfaced that proved the Mccanns were culpible then they would be back in a portugese court as soon as a warrant could be issued.

Until that day happenes they are innocent in te eyes of the kaw and free citizens

Everybody is innocent in the eyes of the law because nobody has been charged or convicted. Nevertheless someone did it.

Donjeta said:

Everybody is innocent in the eyes of the law because nobody has been charged or convicted. Nevertheless someone did it.

Click to expand...

That does not mean it is acceptable to go around pointing the finger at any person conncected or not to the case claiming they have not been cleared in your mind as if this is somehow suspicious. No-one will ever be cleared of involvement. Someone will go from innocent to guilty, but people cannot, and are not obliged to prove their innocence. the police stay it is a stranger abduction, if people think they are wrong they should get in touch with them with their evidence. One cannot get much more cleared than the police say one did not do something.

This article shows how dangerous it is when people feel entitled to go around accusing people because the person has not proven in their little eyes that they are innocent. This man was accused of being an infamous child killer who had been given a secret identity. eventually after much hounding the innocent man killed himself. A site which puts up pictures of a person, naming the and accusing the of being another child killer with a secret identity has been linked to on this forum several before (as well of course having lots of people accusing the mccanns of being criminals). people need to take a good look at themselves and ask theselves why are they so self entitled they have no problem risking ruining a stranger's life because they, who have nothing to do with the case, feel they have not proven their innocence to them personally. That sort of behaviour has caused deaths several times as well as misery.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ames-Bulger-child-killer-Robert-Thompson.html

Which is it? You go from saying in one post that the parents have been cleared to saying that no one will ever be cleared. I've told you before that no one has to prove anything to me personally. I am not the judge and the jury and I have not accused anybody of murdering Madeleine. The only thing I've done is say that I haven't seen where the police said they have cleared the parents of all suspicion as you insist in every other post they have (when you're not saying that nobody will be cleared). I may have missed something and would like you to help me find the link to that information if you can.

brit1981 said:

It yas been stated in the media severla times, scotalnd yard have stated this on TV, and the PJ files also state this.

Click to expand...

Then it should be very easy for you to provide a link...

:banghead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call


can you also provide links for your claims about the FSS, government and ambassador involvement, the charity commission etc. You said you had evidenc eof a cover-up at the highest level, what is this evidence so far you claimed a wikileaks cable stating that an ambassador thought the british police developed the current evidence against the mccanns was your proof, but it makes no mention of a cover-up.

Donjeta said:

Which is it? You go from saying in one post that the parents have been cleared to saying that no one will ever be cleared. I've told you before that no one has to prove anything to me personally. I am not the judge and the jury and I have not accused anybody of murdering Madeleine. The only thing I've done is say that I haven't seen where the police said they have cleared the parents of all suspicion as you insist in every other post they have (when you're not saying that nobody will be cleared). I may have missed something and would like you to help me find the link to that information if you can.

Click to expand...

The term cleared is not a legal one, it is one used by the media sometimes. It is not used by the police. All they do is say someone has been released without charge, charges dropped, or is not a suspect. So whilst the mccanns have been as cleared as anyone can be as the PJ have said they are not suspects (the aguido status can be left in place for years but the PJ dropped it), the portuguese attorney general has said they are not involved, and scotland yard have said they believe it was a stranger abduction.
The reason why people are not declared cleared is because that is the default position i.e innocent before proven guilty. But the problem is that random people are now demanding that the police prove the mccanns innocence to them because of some odd sense of self entitlement that convinces them that the mccanns must be proven to be innocent in their eyes and that they shoudl be privy to the police investigation. The lins above to the files and the interview with andy redwood state they are not suspects.

brit1981 said:

The term cleared is not a legal one, it is one used by the media sometimes. It is not used by the police. All they do is say someone has been released without charge, charges dropped, or is not a suspect. So whilst the mccanns have been as cleared as anyone can be as the PJ have said they are not suspects (the aguido status can be left in place for years but the PJ dropped it), the portuguese attorney general has said they are not involved, and scotland yard have said they believe it was a stranger abduction.
The reason why people are not declared cleared is because that is the default position i.e innocent before proven guilty. But the problem is that random people are now demanding that the police prove the mccanns innocence to them because of some odd sense of self entitlement that convinces them that the mccanns must be proven to be innocent in their eyes and that they shoudl be privy to the police investigation. The lins above to the files and the interview with andy redwood state they are not suspects.

Click to expand...

As far as I can see, he says that he believes it was a criminal stranger abduction.
I am in no way disrespecting Andy Redwood but, just because he believes something, it doesnt mean it is fact.
It's kind of like saying he believes in God, in that there is no conclusive proof, but it is the way he chooses to view his experiences in life and possible reasons for them.

He is obviously a very experienced officer and hopefully will have looked at or be still in the process of looking at all the evidence and information available to his team.
At this moment, it doesn't look like his 195 leads and beliefs, are enough for the Portuguese Judiciary to reopen the case, therefore there cannot be anything important enough by way of new information or evidence to warrant investigation.

I'm sure that if there was anything discovered that was a real clue to this case, the authorities would have instantly acted on it, let's hope that by the time the review has been completed, that something more productive than someones beliefs are brought to bear on this case.

The 195 leads are historic leads, and the Portuguese only open a case up again if the evidence is new.

But all verdicts are reached on beliefs. Someone is found guilty or nto guilty based ont he beliefs of the jury. Someone is charged based on beliefs. We cannot say that just because the police officer in charge beleives something it is no indication of anything. It comes across as thinking that the police should hand over all information to random member sof the public to let them decide.

The Mccanns have been as cleared as anyone can be, that is all there is too it. No-one involved in the investigation beleives they had anything to do with it.

brit1981 said:

The 195 leads are historic leads, and the Portuguese only open a case up again if the evidence is new.

But all verdicts are reached on beliefs. Someone is found guilty or nto guilty based ont he beliefs of the jury. Someone is charged based on beliefs. We cannot say that just because the police officer in charge beleives something it is no indication of anything. It comes across as thinking that the police should hand over all information to random member sof the public to let them decide.

The Mccanns have been as cleared as anyone can be, that is all there is too it. No-one involved in the investigation beleives they had anything to do with it.

Click to expand...

The case is being re-examined by Scotland Yard (about time) and no one has been "cleared".

Please post a link to this assertion.

brit1981 said:

The 195 leads are historic leads, and the Portuguese only open a case up again if the evidence is new.

But all verdicts are reached on beliefs. Someone is found guilty or nto guilty based ont he beliefs of the jury. Someone is charged based on beliefs. We cannot say that just because the police officer in charge beleives something it is no indication of anything. It comes across as thinking that the police should hand over all information to random member sof the public to let them decide.

The Mccanns have been as cleared as anyone can be, that is all there is too it. No-one involved in the investigation beleives they had anything to do with it.

Click to expand...

That is rubbish Brit and you know it, No one is charged on a belief, they are charged on evidence, if there is no evidence then the case will never have a chance of bringing a successful result.
You have spent weeks here trying to discredit the obvious train of thought of the PJ officers in that the McCanns were suspected of being involved in some way, yet the moment that questions are raised on the UK review, then belief is acceptable.

I have even read it from a retired high ranking UK police officer that instinct and belief should be encouraged in that an experienced officer should be able to go on gut feeling and develop a case from there, but that this instinct is being forced out of the way of operating due to political pressures in the modern force (this was an officer speaking about the Tia Sharpe case in the UK).
So my point is in essence, you cannot argue against beliefs on the one hand yet then argue for it when it suits, it has to be an either/or situation.

Why do you constantly have to keep going over the same points, can we not move on from this?
The McCanns have been cleared of any involvement in an incomplete investigation, there was insufficient if any firm evidence to move the case on from where it was at that time.
The same goes for the abductor, no evidence whatsoever to prompt the PJ to continue down that avenue of investigation, shall we move on from there now?
the site is websleuths, it is for sleuthing.

brit1981 said:

The term cleared is not a legal one, it is one used by the media sometimes. It is not used by the police. All they do is say someone has been released without charge, charges dropped, or is not a suspect. So whilst the mccanns have been as cleared as anyone can be as the PJ have said they are not suspects (the aguido status can be left in place for years but the PJ dropped it), the portuguese attorney general has said they are not involved, and scotland yard have said they believe it was a stranger abduction.
The reason why people are not declared cleared is because that is the default position i.e innocent before proven guilty. But the problem is that random people are now demanding that the police prove the mccanns innocence to them because of some odd sense of self entitlement that convinces them that the mccanns must be proven to be innocent in their eyes and that they shoudl be privy to the police investigation. The lins above to the files and the interview with andy redwood state they are not suspects.

Click to expand...

Since lots of crimes go unsolved it stands to reason that people can be released without charge and have charges dropped if there is not enough evidence to have the charges stick in the court and still be suspects.

I do not mean that I am convinced that Madeleine was not abducted by a stranger. By no means. It totally makes sense. If she wasn't it was not for lack of trying because they did everything to facilitate an abduction. They left the children alone as an established nightly pattern of their holiday routine, they made it easy for several acquaintances and strangers to know about it, left doors unlocked and even let nearly two hours go by without checking on the kids.

It just totally goes against the grain for me to have these people presented as some kind of poster children for innocence personified and "cleared of all suspicions" and "not involved".

Of course they are involved in Madeleine's disappearance. You cannot endanger and neglect your children and then be "innocent", "not involved" or "not suspected of any wrong doing" when something bad happens to them as a consequence.

I bet if this was just some family of chavs on welfare without millionaire backing and PR backing who went on holiday and routinely left their three under four-year-olds alone in an unlocked apartment near car traffic and a pool to go have a few cold ones at a bar nearby and they came back two hours later to find that their kids didn't do so well alone they would have been treated differently.



I do not know why they weren't charged for child endangerment but I do believe that it's not legal in any civilized country. These people left their toddlers alone for a hour and a half, with no supervision. If we normalize this behavior as "legal" and talk about parents who do things like that like they did nothing wrong we are utterly failing all the children who will be subjected to such parenting (or lack of, more like) in the future and undoubtedly be hurt by it.

I too believe they should have been charged.

As it is, people now believe it is perfectly ok to leave small babies alone in a foreign hotel room because the McCanns did it.

They should at the very least have been charged with neglect to demonstrate clearly to them and every one else who thinks this way, that no, it was NOT OK.

:banghead:

SapphireSteel said:

I too believe they should have been charged.

As it is, people now believe it is perfectly ok to leave small babies alone in a foreign hotel room because the McCanns did it.

They should at the very least have been charged with neglect to demonstrate clearly to them and every one else who thinks this way, that no, it was NOT OK.

:banghead:

Click to expand...

For me personally, it is about the lack of humility they showed when defending their actions in leaving 3 children night after night.
Whether it was technically legal or not isn't the point as far as I am concerned.

the opportunity for any potential abduction would not have been there if they were not left in an open apartment.
The McCanns owe me nothing as an apology, they owe it to their daughter who they absolutely failed for their own personal choices, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people in this world if faced by the same outcome to such a massive error of parenting, would have been far more humble and ashamed of their behaviour that week.

To top it all, to then have the front to put themselves forward as ambassadors for missing children insults the very children that are indeed missing.
An ambassador should be someone who inspires others to do as he/she does or has done do i need to say any more?

All Kate McCann inspires in me is extreme disgust and anger...likewise her inappropriately smug husband.

fabgod said:

For me personally, it is about the lack of humility they showed when defending their actions in leaving 3 children night after night.
Whether it was technically legal or not isn't the point as far as I am concerned.

the opportunity for any potential abduction would not have been there if they were not left in an open apartment.
The McCanns owe me nothing as an apology, they owe it to their daughter who they absolutely failed for their own personal choices, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people in this world if faced by the same outcome to such a massive error of parenting, would have been far more humble and ashamed of their behaviour that week.

To top it all, to then have the front to put themselves forward as ambassadors for missing children insults the very children that are indeed missing.
An ambassador should be someone who inspires others to do as he/she does or has done do i need to say any more?

Click to expand...

Yeah... they dug up some lawyer or other who said that this was "well within the bounds of reasonable parenting".

Promoting the idea that leaving toddlers alone is reasonable parenting will make more children go missing.

The McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said they were pleased the documents showed police had not abandoned the theory that Madeleine was abducted.

He added: 'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received, both in Portugal and Britain, is that everything they did that week was well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.'

Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...adeleine-night-disappeared.html#ixzz23N8YO8zC

Some ambassadors.

You can stamp your feet all you want, but what they did was and still is legal, both in the UK and Portugal. Why do you think nanny listening services have not been banned? And if missing people want Kate as their ambassador it is up to them, if you do not like it do not donate to missing people.

I do not believe that endangering the welfare of children is legal in any civilized country.

In the Uk and Portugal it is legal to leave sleeping children for half an hour whilst you are fifty metres away checking on them every half an hour. In fact you can be further thna fifty metres as nanny listening services have the nanny quiet far away whilst they are doing the other checks.

They did not check on them every half hour. The first time anybody checked was when Kate McCann reported her missing, and she said she was not planning on looking in on the kids either, if she hadn't thought something was amiss.
If they had been checking every half hour someone would either have been able to testify that Madeleine was safe and sound in her bed earlier or to sound an alarm to say she was missing.

Going to the door and not making sure the children are all right is not checking, it is lip service.

What is the maximum number of minutes and meters that you can legally be away from your children in Portugal or UK?

Usually the legislation just says something vague about endangering and neglecting the children's welfare, without saying "you can be 50 meters away from your kids if you pretend to check every 30 minutes" and children's safety is clearly endangered if you leave them without supervision for hours at a time.