Have you donated to "The Fund"

[brit1981]

:waitasec:
They didn't have to pay for their lawyer(s). A free lawyer is quite a reward imo.

Also, one of the documents that has been linked to several times states that one of the purposes of the fund is to provide financial assistance to the family.

No-win no fee, where the claiment never has to pay, and only the defendent pays if they lose is very common in the UK. They did not bring this practice in just to help the Mccanns. The only financial assistance the McCanns themselves have received is two months worth of mortgage payments, which enabled them to stay in Portugal where they also had to rent a villa.

Who could consider this a reward for their child going missing? In the UK we had a case of two ten year olds who were allowed to walk in their village alone in the early evening. After the disappeared and were found murdered two weeks later after a huge media frenzy, a fund gave money for one of the families to go on holiday to New Zealand for a month - woudl you also consider this a reward for allowing their child to walk unaccompanied, and therefore putting her in a position where it was possible for someone to murder her? I certainly would not, I would consider it helping someone out at their time of greatest need.

 

[brit1981]

For information Sept 2007
Gerry McCann
Speaking in an interview with the News of the World, Gerry also confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund to pay their mounting legal bills.
"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.


Link

All that says is that they did not use the fund for it. It was one tiny sentence. If I felt I was being set up by someone who turned out to be a criminal with a record for fabricating evidence in a case related to a missing child, I would be frustrated at having to pay thousands I could not afford for legal costs because of the criminal's actions and misinterpreation of findings. But remember if they were desperate to get money they could have kept the libel payouts, and the book royalties, and remember millons had poured in before the fund was set up. the fund was set up because they had received such a huge amount in donations, and it could not just be kept in their bank accounts.

 

[Donjeta]

A holiday in NZ?
I expect I would be needing some other kind of help altogether if my child was murdered, I probably wouldn't feel much like having a holiday. But hopefully they enjoyed theirs.

Has it now been established beyond all doubts that Madeleine was abducted?

 

[brit1981]

A holiday in NZ?
I expect I would be needing some other kind of help altogether if my child was murdered, I probably wouldn't feel much like having a holiday. But hopefully they enjoyed theirs.

Has it now been established beyond all doubts that Madeleine was abducted?

Scotland Yard have stated that they believe she was abducted, and PJ have said the parents are no longer suspects (and if they no longer suspect the parents of any involvement it means someone else had to have done it).

the thing is until one finds onself in that situation we really have no idea how we would react if a loved one was murdered or went missing. I think if a loved one of mine went missing I would shift any sense of grief into some sort of denial anything bad could have happened and focus on finding them, anything rather than having to sit down and face the possibility they may have been killed. But I just do not know if thats what would happen in reality, for some people they really need to closure that believing the love done has died, and accepting that, can bring. The not knowing can be torture, you cannot give up looking because you feel you would be giving up on them, sealing their fate, but at least a part of you must feel they are dead, and yet you cannot grieve and come to terms with it because there is still doubt. How can someone do that to another person, a family?

In the 1980's a 25 year old woman disappeared in central London, a week after her disappearence her mother was interviewed and said she believed her daughter had been murdered. She also later said she accepted not having a body, and that the family did not need a body. However I have heard other parents of missing adults, say they believe their child may still be alive, and others still who say they believe they are dead, but need their body back. I also remember when a schoolgirl went missing a few years ago, and was found murdered six months later. I believe her family went on the holidya thye had already booked, and a friend just canceled the missing girls place. To me that seemed odd, but God only knows what they were going through. There just is no one size fits all way to react, it does not mean one family is guilty the other innocent, that one family cares the other does not. People are different, and so are their reactions.

 

[Donjeta]

Some news articles back in the day implied that the arguido status was lifted because the police shelved the investigation, not so much because the police knows what did or did not happen.

While the police investigation is being closed, it can be re-opened in the light of new evidence.

According to a police source, the final report on the investigation is only descriptive of the facts which have been verified and those that have not been ascertained in the case. It means it has not reached any conclusions over whether Madeleine's disappearance involved abduction, homicide, or concealing a body.

Technically the public prosecutor could still press ahead with a prosecution but in the light of such lack of evidence and the police shelving their investigation it is virtually inconceivable

.

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...-put-maddys-parents-in-the-clear-1425165.html

 

[brit1981]

Some news articles back in the day implied that the arguido status was lifted because the police shelved the investigation, not so much because the police knows what did or did not happen.

.

http://www.independent.ie/world-new...-put-maddys-parents-in-the-clear-1425165.html

I think from what I read in the final report, it was more a case of there being no evidence against any of the three aguidos (Robert Murat was made an aguido before the McCanns, and continued to be an aguido until the same time the Mccanns status was dropped). The evidence against the Mccanns was supposed to be the dog alerts, and material found in the car. But the dog alerts are not reliable (in terms of evidence of death) as both dogs alerts to blood, and the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids as well as cadaver scent, plus he has been wrong before (and are not allowed to be used as evidence in court anyway), and the material in the car could have come from any of the Mccanns. There is much said about 15 of Madeleine's 19 different components being present, but as it was a mix of three to five people's DNA, and no sequences were found those components could just as easily have come from Gerry or Kate who together share 100% of madeleine's components.
It seems that for all three there was very little evidence to even make them aguidos. i did hear that the law was about to be changed so that more evidence had to be present to make someone an aguido hence the PJ rushed to make them aguidos before the law change, but have no idea if that is correct. I still think a big part of the problem was Amaral. He was in trouble with big debts, and was made an aguido in a torture case the day after madeleine disappeared. He must have known his career was going to go downhill after the torture trial, and been under a huge amount of pressure to get results from this last case, so jumped the gun in the hope that someone would confess.

 

[Donjeta]

OK. But "no (or little) evidence against" imo does not equal "cleared".

Personally I have a huge problem with some of the McCann statements.

Gerry revealed some of the shocking questions cops asked him.

He said: "We were investigated in the most intimate detail. 'What happened to Madeleine? How did you get rid of her? Who helped you?

Where did you put her?' "My plan was to stay quiet and not answer. But the first question was, 'Are you involved in the disappearance of your daughter?' It was nonsense and I decided to respond."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-and-gerry-mccann-exclusive-weve-334952

I don't see anything shocking in those questions. On the contrary, it would have been heartstoppingly shocking if the police failed to ask the parents those questions and more.

JMO but if my child was abducted it would imo make sense to me to answer all the questions the police asks me so that hopefully they can clear me ASAP and get on finding the real perp. If my brilliant plan is to stay quiet and not respond they may never be able to move away from me.

 

[gord]

unless you are put in the situation of being in a foreign country and being accused of killing your child then unless you actualy are in that situation then who knows how you react - pressure and stress does strange things.

I dont think the Portugese handled things well - Amaral I think jumped the gun of the forensics and tried to go for the jugular - - without having all the ducks in a row - the smoking gun

of course if new evidence comes about the mccanns can be made arguido again - no case is ever closed permenantley

 

[brit1981]

Actually it does equal cleared, as in the EU there is a policy of innocent until proven guilty. Using the idea that an individuel must be proven innocent, any random peson in PDL could have been accused, and then had people saying "well just because there was no evidence against them does not mean they were cleared".

But the McCanns did answer the questions, it was only after they were questioned again Kate did nto answer them all. I believe most of these questions were along the line sof "can you answer any more than you have already".

If you were in a foreign country being questioned by someone suspected of torturing confessions out of a mother in a missing child case, and they were telling you things you knew were lies (like we found evidence her dead body was in your car etc), would you really have faith in them or would you at that point realise that they had no interest in actually finding the child, and were more interested in being able to tell people thay had a solution. Someone put a section fo Amaral's book up here where he talks about DNA. It is at best embarressing for him, as it is obvious he does not have a clue what he is talking about, yet it was his erronous interpretation of this material that he used to make the Mccanns aguidos.

 

[Donjeta]

Actually it does equal cleared, as in the EU there is a policy of innocent until proven guilty. Using the idea that an individuel must be proven innocent, any random peson in PDL could have been accused, and then had people saying "well just because there was no evidence against them does not mean they were cleared".

But the McCanns did answer the questions, it was only after they were questioned again Kate did nto answer them all. I believe most of these questions were along the line sof "can you answer any more than you have already".

If you were in a foreign country being questioned by someone suspected of torturing confessions out of a mother in a missing child case, and they were telling you things you knew were lies (like we found evidence her dead body was in your car etc), would you really have faith in them or would you at that point realise that they had no interest in actually finding the child, and were more interested in being able to tell people thay had a solution. Someone put a section fo Amaral's book up here where he talks about DNA. It is at best embarressing for him, as it is obvious he does not have a clue what he is talking about, yet it was his erronous interpretation of this material that he used to make the Mccanns aguidos.

Everybody is "presumed innocent until proven guilty", as per the judicial system, including the people who actually did it.
It's not even close to the same thing as "cleared" =shown to be innocent.

The parents are not "any random persons".

The police needs to investigate everyone, including the parents. They would use different strategies, sometimes including lying to the suspects. (Assuming that the evidence against the parents are lies...)

If they assumed straight off that the parents must be innocent and ignored everything that point to them so that the parents won't feel bad they would fail the missing child spectacularly.

Every avenue of the investigation must be on the table and pursued aggressively until it can be ruled out.

I'm with Klaas Kids on this.

As intrusive as it may become and as irrelevant as it may seem, fully cooperate with law enforcement and eliminate yourself as a suspect. They will ask questions that seem irrelevant and may even ask you to take a polygraph examination. It is not fair, but it is necessary. Remember, like you, law enforcement doesn’t know where your child is and the sooner they are able to gather and assimilate information and evidence, the sooner they are going to be able to direct their investigation toward the solution.

http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-lawenforcement.htm

Although you know you're innocent and absolutely beyond all suspicion, the police are not you, they don't know what you know about you, and they need to rule you out based on something else than you feeling that you shouldn't be investigated.

 

[brit1981]

Nobody has said the parents should not be investigated, this is normal for every single murder, abuse, or disappearence case. But claiming that people have to have their innocence proven is comical, especially as every single perosn in the McCann case who has said they can act as witnesses for them to prove their innocence has been accused of being "in on it" (along with at least three different governments, ambassadors, the police, the FSS etc). How many people in PDL have had their innocence proven - not one, and that includes Robert Murat. The prosecutors office however has said there is no evidence to suggest the McCanns or Murat were involved, that is being cleared. How else is one supposed to be cleared if not be the prosecutor saying there is no evidence. One can never prove a negative, which is why there is no such thing in these sort of cases as being proven innocent. The only way to be proven innocent is for someone else to be found guilty in a court.

If you are saying the parents could have done it because you do not consider that their innocence has been proven, do you also think this of Murat, and the other people staying in the resort such as their friends, the MW staff etc?

 

[Donjeta]

Not comical at all. The police verify alibies to prove people innocent all the time, and it's also what you are trying to do trying to show that Gerry and Kate were doing this or that and couldn't have done it in the two hours after the last sighting of Madeleine.

Clearing someone is clearly different from "we have no proof they're involved". There are lots of cases in which the guilty parties are pretty obvious but they walk because there is no proof.

Still, there are ways to prove someone is innocent that do not rely on proving a negative, they rely on proving they were doing something else at the time of the crime.

I am sure that some of those other people at the resort have verifiable alibis that would clear them without question.

 

[brit1981]

And how many people do not have alibis in PDL? Murat's only alibi was his mother, but we cannot just claim he cannot prove his innocence. There were hundreds of people in PDL, many of whom will not have alibis, is does not mean it is OK to point at them and go around telling people they are not cleared in the investigation.

The fact is the PJ dropped the aguido status of Murat and the McCanns, the prosecutor said there was no evidence to suggest their involvement, and now Scotland yard believe it was a stranger abduction.

But as for proving they were doing something else at the time of the crime, we do not know what time the crime occurred. We know from witnesses Madeleine was alive and well at five thirty at the earliest, we know from witnesses Gerry was at tennis from about six to seven thirty, we know from witnesses both Gerry and Kate were at dinner from eight thirty until ten, and during that time are unaccounted for just a very few minutes. We know they did not have access to a car, or know the area well, we know no search that night found madeleine or any clues to her whereabouts. We know no-one has been able to establish any motive for either Madeleine dying or her parents covering up her death nor has anyone been able to establish why the McCanns alerted people at ten, why not wait until morning and claim she had been snatched in the night etc.

We also know that despite their jobs facing the public all the time, no-one who has been a patient or colleague of the mccanns has spoken against them. Their GPs said they were good people, and good parents and the children were all fine.

As for the abduction theory we know that the patio doors were unlocked, the front door could be opened even when it was locked and the key in it (according to previous occupents, this may have been fixed), the window and shutter could be opened from the outside (apparently journalists have been caught trying to get in this way - nice) and at the time the flat was secluded with no outside lighting and shubbery which meant that anyone in the light woudl have an even harder time of seeing anyone there. There had been other cases of an intruder assaulting children, another girl went missing from that area three years before. To be honest when you actually think about the security of the flat, it does seem like a prime target for an intruder.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't see any problem in saying that people haven't been cleared if they haven't been. It's not the same as saying we think they did it. In many cases the police don't clear anybody until they are ready to charge the suspect. It would be good for the innocent reputations to have the police state these people didn't do it but very often they won't.
It is what it is.

If you clear people who might have done it you may clear the guilty ones.

If the McCanns did something it would have made sense for them to alert people as soon as they were able. If they waited until morning they would have been suspected way more than they were now because at night they wouldn't have had any alibi at all.

 

[brit1981]

The police do not clear people in the manner you suggest, at least not in the UK and Portugal. People are either made aguidos, and then kept aguidos and brought to trial, or the aguido status is dropped which is equivilent to being cleared. The fact the PJ, Poruguese prosecuter and now scotland yard have all stated they do not believe the parents to be involved is as near to being cleared as you can get. To claim otherwise makes a mockery of the justice system, someone could be proven not guilty, and people would still whine that they have not been proven innocent.

It is a problem to claim people have not been cleared, as it implies they are suspects or suspected of involvement, when in fact the truth of the matter is there is no such thing as being cleared. Someone is either a suspect or not. if we followed you plan that anyone who had not been officially cleared is still suspicious then any single person could be accused of not being cleared of any unsolved crime (me and you included). And why just focus on the mccanns int his case, why not go around and point out any person who has not been officially cleared by your standards.

 

[Donjeta]

Nonsense, I'm sure the police everywhere clear people who are shown to have verifiable alibis. It's another thing whether they come out and say so in public.

And I did not say that everybody who has not been officially cleared is suspicious. However, everybody who was the last to see the missing person and has not been cleared probably is viewed with caution, often for good reason. It is not too difficult a concept to make a distinction between any random person who has no known connection to the case and people who have a very close connection.

"Not cleared" does not mean the same as "suspect", as there are millions of people for any given unsolved crime who have not been cleared. "Not cleared" does not mean the same as "we think you did it". (I think I just explained this to you.) It just means they haven't been able to verify that you were unable to commit the crime.

Also, just because someone is never charged doesn't mean that they have been cleared, it may just mean that there is not enough evidence that would stick in court.

Arguido - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Wikipedia is to be trusted it seems that you can be a suspect in Portugal without being arguido.

If a person becomes an arguido, they automatically gain certain rights that a witness or suspect would not have.[6] An arguido has the right to be accompanied by a lawyer when questioned.[4] The investigating police may ask the arguido more direct accusatory questions (the answers to which would not be admissible in court if possibly self-incriminatory and asked of a non-arguido) but the arguido must be presented with whatever evidence is held against them,[6] and unlike a witness has the right to remain silent,[7] not to answer any question that may incriminate the person, and does not face legal action for lying.[8]

Arguido status gives you some legal rights you wouldn't otherwise have but apparently you can be under suspicion without being formally made an arguido.

 

[brit1981]

How do you clarify cleared though. I would have thought the PJ, Scotland yard, and the Portuguese prosecutors saying you are not suspected of involvement was a pretty good indication of being cleared.

 

[SapphireSteel]

How do you clarify cleared though. I would have thought the PJ, Scotland yard, and the Portuguese prosecutors saying you are not suspected of involvement was a pretty good indication of being cleared.

Can you please post links for this assertion.

tia.

 

[brit1981]

Can you please post links for this assertion.

tia.

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

can you provide sources for your claims that this is a cover up at the highest level, the FSS are not a government owned agency liek the FSS and government stated etc

 

[Donjeta]

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.