New Girl Kidnapped In Spain/portugal

[Claycat]

You're welcome, Salem! Thank you! I just think we have to be open-minded and look at all sides.

I don't know if any of the media are to be trusted totally. Just like us they are biased to their own opinions. That's why we have to look at them all, and look for a middle ground, if it's possible to find.

 

[gord]

Most of the people wh get labeled in the Mccaan simply want to see some strong evidence before we make our mind up either way

what on earth is wrong with that ?

I like April simply havent seen enough hard evidence that will sway our minds to believe they did it . I want to see more than just some headline in the papers I want to see something tangible .

Sure everyone is entitled to their opinions - but when it gets distateful , when people like Tanner get labeled as mad , a murderer ,a liar , then I begin to feel a little uneasy .......... I have seen to many misscarriages of justice -

To want to see a concrete case put forward by the police - before a judge / or jury is waht I want . I want justice

I dont want to see a kangaroo court aided by wild press reporting.

That is not the same as trusting them - My gut feel is they didnt do it , but I dont know - I cant sit here and say 100% they are innocent .

 

[daffodil]

Most of the people wh get labeled in the Mccaan simply want to see some strong evidence before we make our mind up either way

what on earth is wrong with that ?

I like April simply havent seen enough hard evidence that will sway our minds to believe they did it . I want to see more than just some headline in the papers I want to see something tangible .

Sure everyone is entitled to their opinions - but when it gets distateful , when people like Tanner get labeled as mad , a murderer ,a liar , then I begin to feel a little uneasy .......... I have seen to many misscarriages of justice -

To want to see a concrete case put forward by the police - before a judge / or jury is waht I want . I want justice

I dont want to see a kangaroo court aided by wild press reporting.

That is not the same as trusting them - My gut feel is they didnt do it , but I dont know - I cant sit here and say 100% they are innocent .

Completely agree gord :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Texana]

There is nothing wrong of course with being undecided and wanting to see more "hard evidence" before deciding anything.

However, if other people do see something, anything as "hard evidence" and make up their mind, then they are accused of believing rumors, making personal attacks, fueling tabloid speculation, etc, etc.

That's not fair, I think.

It's not fair to decide what is and is not evidence and repeatedly tell people that they should not discuss anything here or at all. That is just opinion, on either side.

And yes, if on every single point brought up here, on every single discrepancy of version of events, there isn't even the slightest concession towards "that could be right, it's possible--" as in with Jane Tanner's version--then the logical conclusion is that someone's mind has been made up on the issue of the McCanns' involvement.

It's not logical to assume that merely because Jane Tanner says something, it's the truth. To examine her version and question it is logical. It doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth to do so.

It's not cruel or heartless to point out that her version of the story has changed, and this has not been refuted publicly either by Jane herself or by legal representation on her behalf.

It may be distasteful to you to see people debating these issues but miscarriages of justice are carried out by the courts, not by a free people exercising what is for us, a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.

 

[Ang50]

I'm not a frequent poster on this case, but I will say this:

Unless the police conclusively find Maria's abductor, and then conclusively establish his whereabouts on the night Maddie was taken, I highly doubt that charges will ever be brought against the McCanns.

The case would be hard to prove anyway, and with another abduction it would be easy for a skilled attorney to create reasonable doubt.

 

[colomom]

I'm not a frequent poster on this case, but I will say this:

Unless the police conclusively find Maria's abductor, and then conclusively establish his whereabouts on the night Maddie was taken, I highly doubt that charges will ever be brought against the McCanns.

The case would be hard to prove anyway, and with another abduction it would be easy for a skilled attorney to create reasonable doubt.

Not if there is positive proof (verified through DNA analysis) of Maddie's blood and spinal fluid in the apartment and in the Scenic.

The Portuguese press reported just exactly that about 2 weeks ago.

IMO, this latest craziness surrounding Mari Luz and the pig farmer is just that....craziness.

 

[Prickle]

The Fund Madeleine "Leaving No Stone Unturned," created by Gerry and Kate McCann after the disappearance of their daughter, and registered in the United Kingdom as a non-profit corporation and not charitable, not help to finance research Mari Luz, the small Spanish disappeared in Huelva last 11 days

.​

The Fund refused, arguing that as long as all possibilities of finding Madeleine are not exhausted, the money is designed to help the family McCann.
The couple Cortés-Suarez, parents Mari Luz, desperate because of the lack of results obtained by the Spanish authorities decided to initiate Metodo 3, the same detective agency, which has been servicing McCann. The bank account set up by parents of Mari Luz to fund research in parallel to the official investigation has not exceeded 5,000 euros, a paltry sum which is not cope with 70,000 euros billed monthly by Metodo 3 in the case of McCann .

http://sosmaddie.dhblogs.be/

How sad, these poor ppl have lost their little girl and it seems there will be no help for them from the fund. What chance have they got in finding little Mari Luz Cortes ?

 

[SleuthMom]

5,000 a month? 5,000 one time fee?

 

[Prickle]

I have tried once again to translate the text but somehow it's not working for me. To be honest, the translation ( i posted translated through Google ) somehow isn't clear, but I took it to mean that they only had 5,000 euro in total.

Why hasn't someone come forward to help these poor parents find their beloved daughter, it just doesn't seem fair.

 

[SleuthMom]

Why hasn't someone come forward to help these poor parents find their beloved daughter, it just doesn't seem fair.

Because probably they are not wealthy doctors with wealthy friends like the Mc Canns. I know, should be all the opposite, shouldn't be? Not in real life.

 

[Prickle]

Exactly Sleuthmom , unlike the McCanns, these ppl have absolutely nothing! They are Gypsies , they have no Billionaire benefactors to back them , no money and it seems very little help! I pray that this little girl will be reunited with her family.
You know a great many children have gone missing in the UK over the past decade, None of these victims have received even a fraction of the coverage given to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. There are millions of children around the world who are in dire straits - victims of traffickers, war and famine - yet the media dedicates reams of coverage to this one case....

 

[SleuthMom]

Yep, the bold and the beautiful. It makes me sick. Dont take me wrong, I feel pain over the disappearance of little Madeleine, at the same time it makes me want to vomit to know that those people who are truly in need of financial support are not able to get it. What makes me even more sick is that those who receive financial help as the Mc Canns (in the million of dollars!) seem to think is never enough and continue (bold face) asking for more! :behindbar

 

[ThoughtFox]

It just shows again that not only have the McCanns been treated "fairly" but they also have been given resources that no other parents have in a situation like this. And yet we are supposed to believe that no one is doing enough. Puh-leeze. :furious:

 

[notfred]

Because probably they are not wealthy doctors with wealthy friends like the Mc Canns. I know, should be all the opposite, shouldn't be? Not in real life.

Well said, an ethnic gypsy family living in a very poor social area of Huelva, doesn't make the same impact as a wealthy couple of doctors, who left their children alone night after night. Sad but true.

 

[Tranaice]

This is just so unfair and so sad. I wish I was rich, I would take care of funding for this sweet little girl to be found.

 

[Trino]

Wouldn't a 26 episode TV series sway the case, depending on the producer's slant? I think this is unreal.

 

[christine2448]

There is nothing wrong of course with being undecided and wanting to see more "hard evidence" before deciding anything.

However, if other people do see something, anything as "hard evidence" and make up their mind, then they are accused of believing rumors, making personal attacks, fueling tabloid speculation, etc, etc.

That's not fair, I think.

It's not fair to decide what is and is not evidence and repeatedly tell people that they should not discuss anything here or at all. That is just opinion, on either side.

And yes, if on every single point brought up here, on every single discrepancy of version of events, there isn't even the slightest concession towards "that could be right, it's possible--" as in with Jane Tanner's version--then the logical conclusion is that someone's mind has been made up on the issue of the McCanns' involvement.

It's not logical to assume that merely because Jane Tanner says something, it's the truth. To examine her version and question it is logical. It doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth to do so.

It's not cruel or heartless to point out that her version of the story has changed, and this has not been refuted publicly either by Jane herself or by legal representation on her behalf.

It may be distasteful to you to see people debating these issues but miscarriages of justice are carried out by the courts, not by a free people exercising what is for us, a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.

Most of the people wh get labeled in the Mccaan simply want to see some strong evidence before we make our mind up either way

what on earth is wrong with that ?

I like April simply havent seen enough hard evidence that will sway our minds to believe they did it . I want to see more than just some headline in the papers I want to see something tangible .

Sure everyone is entitled to their opinions - but when it gets distateful , when people like Tanner get labeled as mad , a murderer ,a liar , then I begin to feel a little uneasy .......... I have seen to many misscarriages of justice -

To want to see a concrete case put forward by the police - before a judge / or jury is waht I want . I want justice

I dont want to see a kangaroo court aided by wild press reporting.

That is not the same as trusting them - My gut feel is they didnt do it , but I dont know - I cant sit here and say 100% they are innocent .

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Until the case is solved with certainty, we can't possibly know what has happened, how, why, blah blah blah....so I agree with this post 100% This goes with any case. Isn't this the point of WS?? To discuss, brainstorm, THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX?

I have said this so many times, every avenue, every angle, every thing you find on the net, should be discussed, ran around in circles, no stone unturned. Some think for sure the McCanns did it, some don't think so. None of us KNOW right now. So, it's open discussion. Every theory, every idea, all the stuff found, opinions or not.

ALL the evidence is NOT in.

Everyone should be open minded. If you have already closed and made up your mind, without knowing all the evidence, your not a good investigator, IMO. (not pointing anyone out, just stating what I believe to be as fact) There is a difference in being just about sure (that's as close as you can get right now) and closing your mind. JMO, FWIW.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Everyone should be open minded. If you have already closed and made up your mind, without knowing all the evidence, your not a good investigator, IMO.

I'm not sure that's a fair thing to say, christine. How much do we have to "know" in order to make a fair judgement.

We may never "know" everything that happened the night that Maddie disappeared. However, the process of deduction doesn't require having all the facts, only enough to raise questions about the story the parents are telling.

I have only sketchy ideas about what actually happened to Madeleine McCann, but there are some incontrovertible facts that we are often asked to "forget" in order to be fair to the parents. She and her siblings were left alone in an unlocked room. So whatever happened to them had to do with the absence of parents and an unlocked door. It has to do with parents who shirked responsibility so they could go party. That's alot to know about this.

We also know alot about what the McCanns have done since they were labeled arguido, such as not submitting to lie detector tests and not returning to Portugal to search for Maddie themselves. We also know the spin their spokesperson puts on ever lead that is actually a dead-end to nowhere. We all read Gerry's Blog, and we've read what the friends are saying. That's alot to know.

No one here is making up their mind without knowing those facts.

 

[Texana]

So many people want to say that the fact that the McCanns left their children alone and in a resort room with an unlocked door, has nothing to do/should not influence how anyone views the disappearance of one of those children.

This is not logical.

If they could leave those children alone and make that decision without any other factors pressuring them at the time, who knows what decisions they could make if they felt themselves under pressure from factors such as the threat of losing their other children, loss of medical licenses/livelihood, etc.

Maybe they didn't, but the fact that they did make that decision, and made it repeatedly, cannot be excluded from any discussion about their possible involvement in the case. They showed extremely poor judgment, especially when you consider their education and background.

Is it logical to assume that they suddenly gained good judgment in the face of a crisis? No, it is not.

I actually don't think the McCanns should face child endangerment charges, if they were not involved in the disappearance. The loss of their child is--if they were not involved--consequence enough. On the other hand, since they continue to defend their decision, and refuse to openly condemn the idea of "babywatching" via random listening checks at closed doors (babywatching this way, being very much an oxymoron) I'm not so sure that a legal consequence might not be appropriate just in terms of a wake-up call as to what is appropriate for parenting responsibilities.

As well, I'm open to believing that the McCanns weren't involved, but for me, it's a simple tally column. So far, the "McCanns had some involvement" column has more marks than the "Not involved" column. I really, really want to believe that the parents weren't involved. But wanting, and wishing, doesn't make anything happen.

If it did, Madeleine McCann would be just another preschooler asleep right now, in her bedroom at home.

 

[christine2448]

I'm not sure that's a fair thing to say, christine. How much do we have to "know" in order to make a fair judgement.

Hiya Thought! Fair Judgement, no problems with that. Being stuck and not listening to any thing else, evidence, ideas, theories, speculation or otherwise, to me is not good. You can lean to a side heavily on what you have so far, but to close your mind off to other potential ideas until you know, isn't it supposed to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't help find the truth.

Do you believe the evidence put forth proves beyond a reasonable doubt one way or another at this time? (ETA< shouldn't say 1 way or another, I should say, to anyone or any for sure scenario)

I am seriously curious, cause I don't follow this case as I would like and I have jumped in here for the first time in a while and am CLUELESS :blushing: