Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[gord]

interesting just listening to the radio as I work ( and post here ! ) and the news comes on about an old Bailey murder case that has just come to an end

The commentator announces that both defendants have been cleared of all charges ........ sort of made my point. i dont know the ins and outs of the case. i am sure that many who are closer think they are guilty as hell but got off. the police are probably ranting as they are two crims who are obvioulsty guilty


but 12 jurors of your peers find not guilty and they are cleared of all charges

 

[Donjeta]

I think the point I am making is of course everyone has opinions - people are found not guilty by a jury but you will find loads of oponions on their status - of course Police Detectives have opinions and they regularly voice them - but in all thuis they are just opinions they do not have legal status or mean anything in law - and in absolute terms it is the legal status that means everything.

They're opinions that have a bearing on which evidence gets gathered and consequently presented in court, though, so indirectly it does mean something in law.

If I was found guilty and put in prison I am still guilty pending appeal . I am not half guilty or some sort of half way house - I am guilty.

If you in fact didn't do it you probably would not say so. You'd say you're innocent and wrongfuly convicted.

If in appeal it is found my trial was wrong or there wasa misscarriage then I would be declared not guilty released and in my eyes innocent. We dont paraphrase it youes innocent - but not really cleared as we still think you did it but you got off on a technicality - ( maybe we should LOL )

Sometimes I've seen trial commentary that says just that.

If you did it but got acquitted I'm not that sure that you would become innocent in your eyes. You might just think that you got lucky and got away with it.

Indeed lots of people might have tons of opinions on my legal status but the only one that counts is in the eye of the law - and not guilty of all charges means to me innocent regardless of what people think.

That is why we have trials and juries and judges because it seperates us from the law of the mob or law of public opinion or in modern day parlance law of the internet.


As we see from this very forum we have many differing views on the mccaans - are they innocent are they guilty - maybe only of neglect etc etc - but only one view matters - the view of the legal system which tries its best to be black and white and at present they are innocent people - they dont have any other status - sure lots of opinions but until new evidence occurs and they are either re arrested then thats where we are

Everyone is similarly innocent in the eyes of the law at the moment. So, it means that no crime was committed? Maybe Madeleine just walked away.

Maybe this is where we differ. I think the legal point of view is very important because it protects us from the lynch mob mentality, like you say. But from a human point of view it is not the only one that counts. If I was innocently charged and acquitted but people still thought that I'm guilty it would matter to me. And from the justice point of view it is important that the legal point of view coincides with whatever took place in reality. If I know that I'm innocent and got convicted as a miscarriage of justice I'm not going to say, oh well, the legal point of view is the only one that matters, I guess I'm guilty then.

 

[brit1981]

But thats the problem peopel like the mccanns, christopher jefferies, Lord McAlpine do face a lynch mob on the internet (it often seems to be the same people as well). That is why it is important that people do not go down the "i can accuse people of what i want, because they have to prove their innocence to me" route. In the Uk it has all come to a head with Lord McAlpine who has threatened to sue 10,000 people on twitter, many of whom are still wittering away about how he has not been proven innocent, how he is being unfair to them, how they think free speech means they can falsly accuse anyone of anything, how they stuck an allegedly/in my opinion/i heard in there etc.
The fact is no evidence has been found against murat or the mccanns, and no-one has the legal right to make false accusations against them.

Not having found evidence against a specific person doe snot mean the official view is no crime was committed, it means the official view is that a crime was committed by person x.

 

[Donjeta]

But thats the problem peopel like the mccanns, christopher jefferies, Lord McAlpine do face a lynch mob on the internet (it often seems to be the same people as well). That is why it is important that people do not go down the "i can accuse people of what i want, because they have to prove their innocence to me" route. In the Uk it has all come to a head with Lord McAlpine who has threatened to sue 10,000 people on twitter, many of whom are still wittering away about how he has not been proven innocent, how he is being unfair to them, how they think free speech means they can falsly accuse anyone of anything, how they stuck an allegedly/in my opinion/i heard in there etc.
The fact is no evidence has been found against murat or the mccanns, and no-one has the legal right to make false accusations against them.

Not having found evidence against a specific person doe snot mean the official view is no crime was committed, it means the official view is that a crime was committed by person x.

And person X is legally innocent just as the really innocent ones.

I haven't really followed the McAlpine saga but I think it's going to lead to a lot of impossible situations if people can be charged for libel for tweeting something that was broadcast by the BBC or other MSM if it turns out not to be true. You kind of expect to be able to say "I heard on the news that..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...ord-McAlpine-settles-with-ITV-for-125000.html

 

[SapphireSteel]

The elephant in the loungeroom is

"why weren't they charged?"

It is considered fact that they would be in jail now if they were Portugese.

One could opine (as I do) that the reason they are not in jail lies with diplomatic interference, lack of cooperation, the heavy duty lawyers.

Sadly most Britons believe the McCann "didn't have time".

They did have time.

We have conflicting stories of the evening.

We have the Tapas groups saying only the regular checkers left the table and they came straight back...but the kitchen tells us there was a main meal that had to be reheated as the person who ordered it was gone from the table for a long time.

We have Kate and Gerry stating over and over again that the door to the apartment was visible from the restaurant. This is completely false. There is no line of sight, and what's more, K&G sat with their backs to the apartments.

:banghead:

All of these inconsistencies need to be dragged into the light...but fancy lawyers and political pressure means they weren't. Now it may be too late.

One can argue their theoretical innocence till the cows come home - how anyone can believe their non-involvement when we have proof of deception, is beyond me.

McCann guilt Indicators - 1000+
Intruder guilt Indicators - 0

It's maths, really.

:cow:

 

[Inana]

This is an old thread, General Discussion is more appropriate than the threads currently active.

In researching, I read the statements of three couples who were staying in room 5A in the month prior to the McCann's arrival on April 28.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/ <O</O

A couple and their daughter were there from March 31 through April 14, 2007. The couple reports that their daughter suffered a cut to the chin while at the crèche, that required stitches. The lady said it was possible that the little one bled in the apartment.

A couple who stayed in 5A April 14 through 21, 2007, reported that, while no one was injured, they did have problems with the front (wooden) door locks. They couldn't keep the maid from barging in after a quick knock, although they tried.

The third couple stayed in the room from April 21 through 28, 2007. The gentleman reportedly cut himself shaving and bled for about 45 minutes and said he walked around the apartment with tissues trying to stop the bleeding. His missus confirms that he bled badly and added that she had problems with the wooden door locks as well.

These reports, JUST from the month of April show that there was a real possibility that blood may have been "sniffed" in the apartment, and whom it may have belonged to. If the dogs can be believed.

They also show that there was a problem with the locks on the front entry door, making it more suspect in the way of security. The McCann's were issued only one key, but we all know that the hotel keeps a copy, the maids have one and maintenance personnel as well. It was noted that it was an old-fashion cut key that was quite worn. Easy to jimmy. Or a master key could have been used.

I believe that is the entry and exit point for the perp.

Just some thoughts. All my own opinion.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

This is an old thread, General Discussion is more appropriate than the threads currently active.

In researching, I read the statements of three couples who were staying in room 5A in the month prior to the McCann's arrival on April 28.
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/ <O</O

A couple and their daughter were there from March 31 through April 14, 2007. The couple reports that their daughter suffered a cut to the chin while at the crèche, that required stitches. The lady said it was possible that the little one bled in the apartment.

A couple who stayed in 5A April 14 through 21, 2007, reported that, while no one was injured, they did have problems with the front (wooden) door locks. They couldn't keep the maid from barging in after a quick knock, although they tried.

The third couple stayed in the room from April 21 through 28, 2007. The gentleman reportedly cut himself shaving and bled for about 45 minutes and said he walked around the apartment with tissues trying to stop the bleeding. His missus confirms that he bled badly and added that she had problems with the wooden door locks as well.

These reports, JUST from the month of April show that there was a real possibility that blood may have been "sniffed" in the apartment, and whom it may have belonged to. If the dogs can be believed.

They also show that there was a problem with the locks on the front entry door, making it more suspect in the way of security. The McCann's were issued only one key, but we all know that the hotel keeps a copy, the maids have one and maintenance personnel as well. It was noted that it was an old-fashion cut key that was quite worn. Easy to jimmy. Or a master key could have been used.

I believe that is the entry and exit point for the perp.

Just some thoughts. All my own opinion.

Wow. Thanks for finding this, It seems to answer some of the issues people have with that apt and that night.

 

[Inana]

AND, in the interviews I wrote about in the above post (#859), two of the former vacationers report that the front entrance was very dark because the outside light over that door was hanging and did not function. In the photo's at http://www.mccannfiles.com/ there are two photo's of the door (& the suspect window) that show that the light above the door was still non-functional.

That door is tucked around the corner from the exterior wall of the apartment's front bedroom, and there is a wall along the side of the building that extends up to the corner of the street. Also lots of trees, making it easy for a perp to be in or out of that door without being seen.

Just more thoughts and still all my own opinion.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

AND, in the interviews I wrote about in the above post (#859), two of the former vacationers report that the front entrance was very dark because the outside light over that door was hanging and did not function. In the photo's at http://www.mccannfiles.com/ there are two photo's of the door (& the suspect window) that show that the light above the door was still non-functional.

That door is tucked around the corner from the exterior wall of the apartment's front bedroom, and there is a wall along the side of the building that extends up to the corner of the street. Also lots of trees, making it easy for a perp to be in or out of that door without being seen.

Just more thoughts and still all my own opinion.

I have to tell you it does not make me feel any better about their babysitting practices but I do feel that you have gather evidence that does show that the dogs could have been hitting on the degraded blood, and that the door was not secure.

IT is big if you ask me.

 

[Inana]

Thanks for the kudo's. Makin' me blush. If you have any thought's on this please post. I'd like to discuss without the arguments.

My own theory is that the perp let himself into the front door and that he WAS in the apartment on Gerry's check at 9:15. Probably behind the door. I think he may have panicked when he was almost caught and as soon as Gerry left, he attempted to open the window. Then realizing the shutter would be too loud, simply took Madeleine out the front door.

If they had been being watched, the bad guy would know that once Gerry left, the next check would be in half-an-hour or so. He would have to take her down the path directly in front of the building to get around the wall, which opened onto the car park at about the middle of the building. Then cut back through the parking lot, onto the road, and across the T-section where Jane Tanner spotted him.

It's the only scenario I can think of as to why the window was open, but not used. Photo's show the lichen on the window sill wasn't disturbed so no one came in or out, per the Portuguese PJ fingerprint lady.

This is all my own opinion and theory.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Certainly a possibility. I believe that someone was watching them and just waiting for the opportunity. I think the set up of the place gave a lot of cover and that they were watching the movements of the parents and then made their move.

I believe that she is still alive at this point. JMO

 

[mandiedq]

http://www.today.com/news/investiga...antive-leads-madeleine-mccann-case-8C11336420

New evidence being looked at.

 

[Inana]

Nancy Grace discussing Madeleines disappearance right now. 7:00 central.

 

[Inana]

Nancy says Madeleine was allegedly seen alive weeks ago.
On a Mediterranean island.
Hope they are right!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Nancy says Madeleine was allegedly seen alive weeks ago.
On a Mediterranean island.
Hope they are right!

Me too. Me too.

I believe if she is alive now she would have been taken from Portugal some time ago. Praying they find her!

 

[Tulessa]

Thanks for the kudo's. Makin' me blush. If you have any thought's on this please post. I'd like to discuss without the arguments.

My own theory is that the perp let himself into the front door and that he WAS in the apartment on Gerry's check at 9:15. Probably behind the door. I think he may have panicked when he was almost caught and as soon as Gerry left, he attempted to open the window. Then realizing the shutter would be too loud, simply took Madeleine out the front door.

If they had been being watched, the bad guy would know that once Gerry left, the next check would be in half-an-hour or so. He would have to take her down the path directly in front of the building to get around the wall, which opened onto the car park at about the middle of the building. Then cut back through the parking lot, onto the road, and across the T-section where Jane Tanner spotted him.

It's the only scenario I can think of as to why the window was open, but not used. Photo's show the lichen on the window sill wasn't disturbed so no one came in or out, per the Portuguese PJ fingerprint lady.

This is all my own opinion and theory.

Thanks for this post. I was beginning to think that ScarlettScarpetta and I, were the only ones to believe that the MccAnns were innocent.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

For me all are innocent until proven not. I am not going to assume guilt. I have to have guilt proven to me.

Im glad to see open minds and hearts! I think it helps to see truth and justice.

 

[Inana]

Thanks for this post. I was beginning to think that ScarlettScarpetta and I, were the only ones to believe that the MccAnns were innocent.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember vinyl records but it appears to me that some folks are stuck at a 'skip' on the album. So when it skips they keep going back to the chorus and never get to the end of the song.

Amaral's book was written in 2007, there has been much revealed and perused since then, but he is skipping in 2007, as are his followers. No offense meant to anyone. Just an observation.

My own opinion of course.

 

[James50]

The notion that the McCanns are guilty is utter nonsense. The people who believe this have read waaaaaay too many bad works of fiction.

 

[blefuscu]

The notion that the McCanns are guilty is utter nonsense. The people who believe this have read waaaaaay too many bad works of fiction.

Show me one grain of evidence that there was an intruder. Nothing since 2007 has shown that there was ever an intruder in that room. Yet people who look logically at the evidence that is there are the ones reading fiction?