Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 20

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Salem said:
Colomom - this link won't work for me. But maybe I can figure it out?

Salem
Click to expand...

Hi Salem (waving madly)!

It is a problem with the server that hosts that blog....try tomorrow.

Nice to "see" you!
 
I tried to post this earlier, but Websleuths must have been down today.

A Dutch tourist thinks she saw Madeleine McCann in France. *sigh*

For some reason, as soon as I saw the photograph of the young woman who had the sighting, I had a feeling it was nothing. She looks as if she is posing for a photo-shoot:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=516836&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Anyway, yawn, now the police are saying this child has been ruled out. I don't know if this tourist got a license number for the car or not (one would hope so) but perhaps that is why CNN is now reporting that it was not her:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/20/france.mccann/index.html

But The Associated Press, quoting an unnamed police official, is reporting that investigators have determined it was not the missing child.

Police watched the closed-circuit video footage, and despite the child looking like Madeleine, it was not her, said the official, who did not want his name published because he is not authorized to speak to media about the case.
Click to expand...
 
Yet another sighting of Madeleine dashed! What a surprise...:rolleyes: I have long given up on any sighting being genuine...been far too many imho. I know that I may sound callous, honest, I don't mean to but I believe that Maddie never left Praia da Luz area.
Malta, Spain, Holland, Morocco the list goes on and on....fruitless searches which come to absolutely nothing.


Incidentally, more than 200 police officers have been taking part in a massive search for a missing nine-year-old girl who disappeared on Tuesday night. Wonder if Shannon will get the same attention....doubt it somehow

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/20/nmissing220.xml
 
Sofia, Portugal (18/02/2008)
I support the Policia Judiciaria in their search for the Truth in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. My country, its people and its institutions have been ridiculed, insulted and humiliated countless times by the McCanns, their relatives, their friends, their supporters and a significant part of the British media. This does not help Madeleine, but that does not seem to matter to those individuals. Portugal has paid a hefty price for the McCanns' responsible parenting style. What hurts most is that Madeleine has paid an even higher price. Justice for Madeleine. Força, PJ!

I found this http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/080218mccann.shtml

Portugal have had to put up with no end of criticism since the abduction/disappearance of Madeleine and can have done absolutely no favours for the on coming holiday season . My heart goes out to these ppl...especially Praia da Luz where it is ongoing.
 
So the McCanns want to see the footage from that restaurant in France where the tourist saw the Maddie look-alike.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1306401,00.html?f=rss

I find it rather interesting that so few people are paying any attention to these stories. It's rather like the boy who cried wolf or the people in the movie Jaws who yell "shark!" too many times. We've had too many tourists saying they knew "for sure" that they saw Madeleine, and then it was some other child.

The BBC also has an interesting article on just how "common" Madeleine's eye defect might be:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7256513.stm

. . . A coloboma occurs when the eye fails to develop fully while the baby is in the womb. It leaves part of the structure missing, creating a gap.

"Keyhole"

Colobomas can occur in several parts of the eye - the word itself means an absence or defect of tissue. When a coloboma is in the iris - like Madeleine's - it can give the appearance of a keyhole. In very rare cases a person can get one in each eye.

"They're pretty uncommon," says Iain Anderson, chairman of the Eyecare Trust. "In my patient base of 5,000 just one person has one. It is a significant distinguishing feature in identifying someone."

It's not known why colobomas occur but there appears to be a strong hereditary factor.
Click to expand...
 
This means nothing, and is only an observation I made one day while checking out the coloboma history in Madeleine. The picture below has only been lightened and cropped. If you magnify it to about 200% it clearly looks as though Kate also has a coloboma. Could be the hereditary factor the the article is talking about. Kate's eyes appear dark blue in resent pictures. I wonder if she wears colored contacts to enhance her eyes.

Lightened http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/i303763528_36865_5.jpg
Original http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/i303763528_36865_5-1.jpg
They're pretty uncommon," says Iain Anderson, chairman of the Eyecare Trust. "In my patient base of 5,000 just one person has one. It is a significant distinguishing feature in identifying someone."

It's not known why colobomas occur but there appears to be a strong hereditary factor.
Click to expand...
 
There is no doubt that Madeleine's eyes are shaped like her mother's, but why wouldn't Kate ever say that she also had a colobama? :confused: I've seen much more close-up shots of Kate before, and didn't notice anything.

Couldn't it just be a birth-defect? Also, hereditary could mean it goes back a generation. It doesn't have to come from Kate. I think it just means that the genetic trait makes it more likely.
 
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral the Portuguese detective who led the hunt for Madeleine faces trial over his conduct in another missing child case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517685&in_page_id=1770

Amaral, 48, will stand trial along with four other officers - three of whom are alleged to have attacked Leonor Cipriano, whose nine-year-old daughter Joana vanished in 2004.

An inquiry was launched into the allegations and yesterday a judge ruled the five officers allegedly involved will face charges in court.
 
In answer to colomom about 10 days ago, I am a qualified social worker with an M.A. in Social Work from Nottingham University back in 1975. In 1993 I qualified as a Solicitor, after three years' studying, two of them part-time. I practised law until November 1999, when I gave up my legal practice in order to take a full-time job as the political researcher/ secretary for a newly-elected Member of the European Parliament, Jeffrey Titford M.E.P. Since then, I have not practised law, though I could at any time do so again simply by application to the Law Society to renew my practising certificate. When my legal qualification is relevant, I now usually describe myself as a 'retired Solicitor', being 60 years old.

The Madeleine Foundation is very much about remembering Madeleine for the reasons she should be remembered. Not for being abducted by wicked paedophiles, but rather for being a neglected child - left with her 2-year-old brother and sister evey night whilst her parents knocked back strawberry daiquiris and wine - and possibly also for having died at her parents' hands, either by their not being there when she died, or because she was over-sedated with drugs, or possibly even attacked by one of them in a violent temper.

So one of my acts has been to establish this petition, on our Prime Minister's website, which has attracted 100 signatures in its first 11 days. It can be signed by residents in Britain OR by British citizens abroad:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/no-to-neglect/

I look forward to making further contributions as I get to find my way around this new site.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
april4sky said:
Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral the Portuguese detective who led the hunt for Madeleine faces trial over his conduct in another missing child case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517685&in_page_id=1770

Amaral, 48, will stand trial along with four other officers - three of whom are alleged to have attacked Leonor Cipriano, whose nine-year-old daughter Joana vanished in 2004.

An inquiry was launched into the allegations and yesterday a judge ruled the five officers allegedly involved will face charges in court.
Click to expand...

Copied from: http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=latest&thread=1203752717&page=1

Thanks to Summer at Proboards who has read the book and kindly provided us with a summary.

* WARNING * DISGUSTING DETAILS *

A Estrela de Joana

by Paulo Pereira Cristovao

The story is about a team of three investigators from the PJ in Lisbon, who are called in to the Joana case almost a month after the child went missing. Joana was last seen at a small cafe in the village where she lived, Figueira, on the early evening of September 12, 2004. She was sent by her mother to buy some cans of tuna and a package of milk. She was repoted missing by her mother and her partner the next day, at the GNR station in Portimao.

When the three PJ members from Lisbon are called in, Joana's mother Leonor Cipriano and her uncle Joao Cipriano (Leonor's brother) are in preventive custody, suspected of killing Joana and of concealing her body. The three inspectors from Lisbon - Cristovao, Marques Bom and Leonel - are brought in to help with their interrogations, as Joao Cipriano has confessed to killing his niece, and then has led the Faro inspectors on several wild goose chases, claiming to show them where the body is, but the PJ always return empty-handed.

The triad arrives in Faro and immediately meets Guilhermino da Encarnacao, the director of PJ in the Algarve, and Goncalo Amaral, who is leading the investigation into the Joana case. They are visibly exhausted, and they welcome the help from Lisbon, as their personnel has hit a dead end, and have exhausted all their resources.

The interrogations begin almost immediately, and Cristovao soon notices that Joao Cipriano, who seems to be a rather primitive character, is actually very smart in an uneducated way. He has developed defenses over the many hours of tentative interrogations that were performed by PJ investigators before. So Cristovao tries a different path, by apparently befriending Joao, and deliberately ignoring his attempts to lead him in yet another outing to supposedly show him where Joana's body has been hidden.

Leonor is also interrogated by Cristovao. The picture of the Cipriano family starts to draw itself. The siblings - Joao has a twin sister - admit to having sexual intercourse with each other as if this was absolutely normal, Leonor has an array of children from different partners which include a teenage daughter who cannot even bear to hear her mother's name, they have never experienced a stable family environment, being utterly incapable of thinking about anyone else except themselves. Leonor lives with a man, Leandro, in a house in Figueira. There is one bedroom that is used by Leonor, Leandro and their 2 small children. The other room was shared by Joana and a male adult friend of Leandro, Carlos. Joana adored her mother, in spite of all the abuse she suffers at her mother's hands. Leonor often sends Joana at 3 or 4 a.m. to walk to a nearby cake factory, because Leonor likes to eat warm cakes. Joana draws cardboard hearts where she writes that she loves her mother.

Gradually, an even more sinister picture starts to emerge. The detectives soon discover that Joao has several different sex partners apart from his sisters. A more or less regular partner confides that she has to have sex with him even when she is suffering menstrual cramps, because she is terrified of what he would do to her if she refused. Leonor is also visibly afraid of Joao's temper, and she obeys him blindly. Once left alone in an interrogation room with Joao, the detectives overhear a conversation where Joao tells Leonor that they must now tell everyone that a mysterious Spanish man took Joana away.

During one of the interrogations, Joao, who has mood shifts, ends up confessing voluntarily to having beaten Joana, who hit a wall with her head and collapsed dead on the floor. He says he was having sex with Leonor while the girl had been out on her errand, but Joana returned and saw them. She said she would tell Leandro about what she saw. The child tried to run out of the house, but was dragged back in by Joao and Leonor. Leonor slapped her, and then Joao also slapped the girl. The child flew against a wall, bumped her head and dropped dead on the floor. He then cut up her body and stored it in plastic bags in the family's freezer. Cristovao, the detective who is interrogating him, asks some specific questions about the process of cutting. Joao's answers chillingly detail the process, including correct information about the difficulty in separating certain joints. He also tells Cristovao that all 4 adults - Joao, Leonor, Leandro and Carlos - ended up knowing that Joana was dead, as he and Leonor showed the bags in the freezer to Leandro and Carlos when they arrived home, later that evening. Joao later repeats his confession in the presence of his lawyer, and duly signs it.

The detectives return to Figueira, now with a forensics team, to check whether the information that Joao has given them yields some traces of evidence. Their discoveries turn out to be much more than they bargained for. They discover the orange flip-flops that Joana was supposedly wearing the evening she vanished. Then they turn the uv light to the wall where Joao told them the child had hit her head before collapsing dead on the floor.

Her face is clearly 'drawn' on the wall, also two small hands that left a trace that goes down the wall, showing Joana's last movement. They also discover the prints of her hands on the frame of the house's outer door, that were left there at the moment when she tried to escape. Joao had told Cristovao how Joana had tried to cling to the door frame, and they had to pull her back in by her legs. Everything is photographed.

On the sofa where allegedly Joao was having sex with his sister, no traces of bodily fluids were found. But the forensics team detects blood residues on one of the sofa's feet. They also discover several traces of sperm on a bedcover that is on Joana's bed, as well as on the pillows and on the wall next to the bed. Everything is taken by the forensics team, to be tested in their lab.

Meanwhile, the investigators watch a video capture that was made by an amateur videographer who was filming a local festivity on the evening of September 12, the evening that Joana disappeared. Leandro, Leonor's partner, is coincidentally captured on tape. At that time, he is supposedly searching the area for Joana, as all four adults had stated earlier. But the camera films Leandro at the bar, having a beer. He is not seraching for anyone. He has hid head hanging, his eyes focused on the ground, with a deeply sad demeanour about him.

Back in Faro, at the PJ's offices, detective Cristovao confronts Leonor with what Joao has told them about the child's death. He omits the part of the body being dismembered. Leonor thinks her partner, Leandro, has denounced her to the police. She finally starts to cry and tells the detective that Joao cut the body up, and put the pieces inside bags, and into the freezer. Marques Bom takes Leonor away into another room, while Cristovao writes down what happened. Leonor will have to repeat everything later, in the presence of a lawyer, to validate her confession. As Cristovao is finishing his report, he hears a commotion outside. He finds Marques Bom and another detective, Antonio, on the floor of the staircase, with Leonor. Goncalo Amaral also arrives to see what the noise is about. Marques Bom says Leonor asked to go to the toilet, so they stood outside the toilet's door and waited for her to come out. But she opened the door, raced past the detectives towards the stairwell and tried to jump off the railing. They managed to prevent her from jumping, but she then threw herself off the stairs.

Leonor is brought back to the prison. During the night, Cristovao receives a phone call informing that Leonor has a bump on her head that is swelling up, so two other detectives take her to a local medical center. The doctor who examines her says the bump is not serious, but there is an internal blood spill and the woman should rest lying down, to prevent the blood from descending into the eye area. They take the woman back to prison. Later on, Leonor will be counseled by someone at the prison to press charges against the detectives, saying they beat her in order to extract a confession.

The picture that is later published in several newspapers shows blood around her eyes, but absolutely no trauma to the eye area. Leonor will also later fail to identify Marques Bom and Leonel at a line-up. She will identify Cristovao, who was the element that spent most time interrogating her, but she will state formally that Cristovao never hit her.

A few days later, Cristovao receives a phone call from Teresa, the forensics team leader that went with the detectives to the house in Figueira. She has results from the tests: the blood that was found on the foot of the sofa, is from one of Leonor's children. But it is not from Joana, nor from the 2 small children that live in the house, and not from her teenage daughter, either. The blood comes from a descendant of Leonor, but none of the known children matches the DNA profile. The residues that were collected from Joana's bed and from the wall next to her bed don't give conclusive results. The blood sample that was detected in the freezer is human, but it is impossible to extract DNA from the sample.

Meanwhile, the detectives talk to a convict in another prison, who shared a cell with Joao when he was imprisoned years earlier for aggression. The convict had spoken to Joao about the crime that he had comitted, the homicide of a man, and he had told him that his biggest mistake had been to tell the police where they could find the body of the man he had killed. This convict had taught Joao that nobody could be convicted without a corpse, and he had also taught Joao about the art of the Triangle. To kill in one location; to dump the body at another location; and finally to move into another location. On a map, these 3 locations form a triangle. The investigators remember that Joao had confessed to killing in Figueira. He had then gone to the junkyard that Leonor's partner Leonel operates. And finally, he had gone to his twin sister's house. This constituted a triangle.

The detectives bring Joao into the PJ's offices once again. Cristovao sits in front of him, and draws a triangle on a sheet of paper. Joao smiles and completes the drawing with three names, one at each vertex of the triangle: Figueira, Junkyard and Casa Alta, the location where his twin sister lives. The investigators know they must go to the junkyard. They drive there with Joao. He tells them he placed the bags inside a red car that was going to be pressed and destroyed, but the car is not there anymore.

Later, an informant that wanted to remain anonymous tells the investigators that he saw Leandro and Carlos, on the day after Joana disappeared, driving their truck with an old red car on top of it. They went into the direction of Spain, and the informant thought it was odd because a Spanish foundry came to the junkyard regularly every month to pick up the cars for disposal. They had no apparent need to drive an old car into the Spanish foundry, as they could wait for the regular pick-up. The detectives go into Spain and visit the foundry. The place is huge, and the detectives decide they need to go back to Faro and formally ask the Spanish authorities for help.

But when they arrive back in Faro, they are summoned to return to Lisbon immediately. They were taken off the case because Leonor has filed a complaint against them for assault.

On November 11, 2005, the Portimao court condemned Leonor Cipriano to a sentence of 20 years and 4 months in prison, and Joao Cipriano to 19 years and 2 months in prison, for qualified homicide and concealment of the body of Joana Cipriano. The Supreme Court later determined a sentence of 16 years each, for Leonor and her brother Joao.

------

(Summer's) Notes: the book could be considered biased, as it is written by one of the three inspectors that now stand accused of assaulting Leonor Cipriano. But the ex-inspector mentions names, procedures and situations that could be easily disproved, but were not, at least until now. So I think it's fair to assume that the book is factual - the only episode that has apparently no external witnesses is the one of Leonor trying to kill herself.
 
colomom said:
(Summer's) Notes: the book could be considered biased, as it is written by one of the three inspectors that now stand accused of assaulting Leonor Cipriano. But the ex-inspector mentions names, procedures and situations that could be easily disproved, but were not, at least until now. So I think it's fair to assume that the book is factual - the only episode that has apparently no external witnesses is the one of Leonor trying to kill herself.
Click to expand...
colomom in light of the charges....Who wrote the book must make it questionable. I did notice that though Joana's body was supposed to have been cut up no DNA was found from her body. mmmmm......sound familiar?
As to the guilt of Joana's mother Leonor Cipriano and her uncle Joao Cipriano, I have no idea but if guilty I hope they rot in hell!!! I think the case is being looked at again.....And should be if these charges are true.......But that was not my point.

These charges against Amaral and his detectives must bring into question his honesty into the investigation of Madeleine's case. IMO
 
april4sky said:
colomom in light of the charges....Who wrote the book must make it questionable. I did notice that though Joana's body was supposed to have been cut up no DNA was found from her body. mmmmm......sound familiar?
As to the guilt of Joana's mother Leonor Cipriano and her uncle Joao Cipriano, I have no idea but if guilty I hope they rot in hell!!! I think the case is being looked at again.....And should be if these charges are true.......But that was not my point.

These charges against Amaral and his detectives must bring into question his honesty into the investigation of Madeleine's case. IMO
Click to expand...

You know April, I could have just cut that part off but I did not. I just try to get the most detailed information I can find and share it with you. I think it is vital that we see all sides. Then you can judge for yourself, or wait for the court system to pass judgement.

As I have said before, it is the preponderance of the "evidence" (circumstantial or not) that drives my opinion.

Just because charges are brought (or arguido status is assigned) does not mean that a person is guilty or even that their "honesty" should be questioned. BUT, if there is alot of "evidence" that points to the guilt of that person well, then their ethics will be examined. It is human nature.

So, you have to decide....is there enough "evidence"???
 
Lord help us - now there's been a sighting in Dorset, UK! :eek: This is one for the scrapbook!

http://www.thisisdorset.net/display.var.2069066.0.police_play_down_madeleine_sighting.php

DORSET Police are playing down an alleged sighting of missing Madeleine McCann in the county. Alan Cameron, a retired civil servant, claims the toddler turned up at his house in Stratton, three miles north-west of Dorchester.

Sunday newspapers reported the child matching Madeleine's description arrived in the care of a Portuguese couple, who had come to buy some garden furniture advertised locally.

...Mr Cameron, 66, said he became suspicious when he saw a girl sitting in the couple's car.

He told the Sunday Express: "Straight away the couple struck me as odd. The woman said she was Italian but they were speaking fluent Portu-guese. The man told me they ran a language centre in Weymouth but then the woman hit him and told him to be quiet."

Mr Cameron, a former clerk with the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the girl spoke in English and appeared distressed as he let her use his bathroom.

He said: "The woman grabbed her and scooped her under her arm.
Click to expand...

Clarence thought this sighting had some merit of course. ::) Are the McCanns on their way to Dorset to "search"? I doubt it.
 
The article seems to imply the English LE are not too convinced it could be Maddie. I'm waiting to hear what they find. I wonder why the child was crying. I hate it when children cry - it makes me sad.

Salem
 
Salem said:
The article seems to imply the English LE are not too convinced it could be Maddie. I'm waiting to hear what they find. I wonder why the child was crying. I hate it when children cry - it makes me sad.

Salem
Click to expand...

She'd have to have a passport to be brought back into England. Of all the places a little girl that age would get scrutinized, it would be at British customs and entrances.
 
colomom said:
You know April, I could have just cut that part off but I did not. I just try to get the most detailed information I can find and share it with you. I think it is vital that we see all sides. Then you can judge for yourself, or wait for the court system to pass judgement.

As I have said before, it is the preponderance of the "evidence" (circumstantial or not) that drives my opinion.

Just because charges are brought (or arguido status is assigned) does not mean that a person is guilty or even that their "honesty" should be questioned. BUT, if there is alot of "evidence" that points to the guilt of that person well, then their ethics will be examined. It is human nature.

So, you have to decide....is there enough "evidence"???
Click to expand...
colomom the above "highlighted" is what I have a problem with. It certainly sounds good......but often it isn't in truth happening. Otherwise why are clearly outrageous and inflamatory posts from questionable blogs repeated here? Just to inflame peoples opinions...I believe. They certainly won't help us find out, or get justice for Madeleine.

As for evidence! Against Joana's mother, I have no idea. I just hope Joana has real justice whatever happened.

And evidence against the McCanns. I honestly still haven't seen any.
First of all. As I'm sure we all do....I want Madeleine found. Failing that I too want justice for her. But 'real' justice, not wild accusations against her parents because they made a fatal error when they decided to do their own baby listening......And if she was taken.....it's giving a free pass to whoever took her.

That wouldn't be justice for Madeleine....just the opposite in fact. IMO.
 
april4sky said:
colomom the above "highlighted" is what I have a problem with. It certainly sounds good......but often it isn't in truth happening. Otherwise why are clearly outrageous and inflamatory posts from questionable blogs repeated here? Just to inflame peoples opinions...I believe. They certainly won't help us find out, or get justice for Madeleine.

As for evidence! Against Joana's mother, I have no idea. I just hope Joana has real justice whatever happened.

And evidence against the McCanns. I honestly still haven't seen any.
First of all. As I'm sure we all do....I want Madeleine found. Failing that I too want justice for her. But 'real' justice, not wild accusations against her parents because they made a fatal error when they decided to do their own baby listening......And if she was taken.....it's giving a free pass to whoever took her.

That wouldn't be justice for Madeleine....just the opposite in fact. IMO.
Click to expand...

OK, I hear you, I understand what you are saying but, step back and take a look with a wide angle lens.....

How is it that one side of the fence's posts are considered "outrageous and inflammatory" while the other side's are not? How is it that those who think the McCann's were involved are any less legitimate in their beliefs than those that think they weren't? This is not a contest to see who is right or who is wrong. We all post things that resonate with us, one way or another. There are those among us that are absolutely convinced and those that are not. We need to allow each other to express our feelings and outline our ideas without prejudice. That way we can all learn from each other and perhaps find the clarity that we are seeking. The back and forth bad mojo is very counter-productive. I am sure you will agree.

If we were hired detectives a few of us would be fired.

I do not see the "free pass" being given. All of the sightings are being investigated (even if it is by Metado3). The reservoir and crematorium were searched. I believe that we do not have enough information regarding the searches performed by the PJ (and I do believe that searches have been carried out). The PJ have not been allowed to proceed as they see fit, IMO. They have been "directed", IMO.

Even so, people's opinions do not an investigation make. What in the world does public opinion have to do with a police investigation? Do you honestly believe that what we post here, or anything posted anywhere else, has a direct effect on the police investigation? Well, that would be a first, wouldn't it?

If I was an officer of the law and involved in an investigation of a missing child, I would not give a $hit about what the public thought. Why should we believe any different??

Therefore, the "Justice for Madeleine" sentiment is just that.....
 
colomom said:
OK, I hear you, I understand what you are saying but, step back and take a look with a wide angle lens.....
How is it that one side of the fence's posts are considered "outrageous and inflammatory" while the other side's are not? How is it that those who think the McCann's were involved are any less legitimate in their beliefs than those that think they weren't? This is not a contest to see who is right or who is wrong. We all post things that resonate with us, one way or another. There are those among us that are absolutely convinced and those that are not. We need to allow each other to express our feelings and outline our ideas without prejudice. That way we can all learn from each other and perhaps find the clarity that we are seeking. The back and forth bad mojo is very counter-productive. I am sure you will agree.

If we were hired detectives a few of us would be fired.

I do not see the "free pass" being given. All of the sightings are being investigated (even if it is by Metado3). The reservoir and crematorium were searched. I believe that we do not have enough information regarding the searches performed by the PJ (and I do believe that searches have been carried out). The PJ have not been allowed to proceed as they see fit, IMO. They have been "directed", IMO.

Even so, people's opinions do not an investigation make. What in the world does public opinion have to do with a police investigation? Do you honestly believe that what we post here, or anything posted anywhere else, has a direct effect on the police investigation? Well, that would be a first, wouldn't it?

If I was an officer of the law and involved in an investigation of a missing child, I would not give a $hit about what the public thought. Why should we believe any different??

Therefore, the "Justice for Madeleine" sentiment is just that.....
Click to expand...
Believe me colomom I have looked at this with a wide angled lens. From day one. Which is why my previous post still stands.

And I don't believe those who think the McCanns were involved any less legitimate in their beliefs. Not a problem if its fair critisism of them. Do you believe that all the smears against the McCanns has been either honest or fair?
I really don't see how we can learn from each when blind hatred of the McCanns seems to be driving some......though not by any means all........posters comments. IMO.

As I have said before. I don't know if they are guilty......of anything other than leaving their children. But at this point I don't believe so.
I find it hard to believe that you believe half of the accusations out there. But then maybe I'm wrong. :waitasec:

We definately disagree on the "free pass"

And yes, while all of the sightings of Madeleine are hopefully being investigated.......The sightings are being ridiculed. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 165 more.
Total: 4,405 (members: 166, guests: 4,239)

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
4,239
Total visitors
4,405
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,614
Messages
17,971,852
Members
228,844
Latest member
SoCal Greg
Back
Top