Crimewatch Reconstruction 14.10.13 2100GMT

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donjeta said:
You.



No one has been found guilty in a court of law regarding Madeleine's disappearance. So everybody is innocent.
Click to expand...

You have obviously misunderstood me.

As Cappuccino said, legally speaking everybody is innocent, but of course it is obvious that somebody is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

As to which person (or persons) that is, well we won't know unless they are found guilty in a court of law.
 
Cappuccino said:
Legally speaking, yes.
Click to expand...

If and when somebody gets charged for Madeleine's disappearance they will be innocent in a court of law until proven guilty but the person who actually did it is as guilty as they come right now. JMO.

In every unsolved crime there is at least one person who is innocent in the eyes of the court of law but guilty in every other way.
 
We all know that. But shadowdancer was still right to point out that the McCanns are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, given the stridency with which some accuse them.
 
shadowdancer said:
You have obviously misunderstood me.

As Cappuccino said, legally speaking everybody is innocent, but of course it is obvious that somebody is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

As to which person (or persons) that is, well we won't know unless they are found guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...

JMO but it is in fact a bit about clearing people too, not just proving people guilty because it helps to narrow the field and the prosecutor is happier if the police can actually clear the victim's family and other interested parties who the defense might bring up as alternative theories, not just shrug and say that they haven't been proven guilty, so there.
 
Cappuccino said:
We all know that. But shadowdancer was still right to point out that the McCanns are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, given the stridency with which some accuse them.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are, and so is the actual guilty party.
 
Well, hmmm. Now the timeline of Madeleine's going missing has been moved back to 8:30, when the McCanns left the apartment on their way to the restaurant. Matthew Oldfield went to check on his kids at 9, and then Gerry went to look in on his at 9:15, when he had his chat with (?) Jeremy (?), and around the time Jane saw the eggman.

At 9:30, Kate started to go check, even though Gerry had just checked. Matthew Oldfield volunteered to look in on the kids, and Jane's partner went to check on theirs (he stayed with them because one of them was sick. Then at 10, Kate went to check and discovered that Madeleine was gone.

So the kids were alone and unchecked from 8:30-9:15, then checked at 9:15 and 9:30. And now the timeline for the window of disappearance has been opened up wider. Do the police think that she was gone when Gerry and Oldfield checked, and that they just didn't notice? No wonder no one wanted a re-inactment when it had first happened.
 
Donjeta said:
JMO but it is in fact a bit about clearing people too, not just proving people guilty because it helps to narrow the field and the prosecutor is happier if the police can actually clear the victim's family and other interested parties who the defense might bring up as alternative theories, not just shrug and say that they haven't been proven guilty, so there.
Click to expand...

But even if somebody cannot be cleared through the investigation, it does not in anyway imply that they are guilty.

You probably couldn't rule out half of the residents and tourists in the town at the time! Anyone who was home alone for example couldn't be ruled out, because they have no witnesses to corroborate that they stayed home and didn't go down to the holiday apartments to abduct Madeleine.
 
I went back to look at some of my old posts, and found this, which I had totally forgotten about.

If true, this changes everything. It explains the random leaving the table to check on the kids- each couple was removing their children from the McCann apartment. And if this is true, it means that they mostly knew Madeleine had died or was in extremis at some point. What they probably didn't know was how it was going to play out.


http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...cle2621809.ece

Quote:
However, a source within the investigation was quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “It’s not only the collected evidence that points to the fact that there were more children inside that [the McCanns'] apartment.

“Evidence also exists, following the interrogations to the other people who that were at the Ocean Club, that only the McCanns’ apartment was visited by the people who attended the dinner.”

I've always thought that the truth of what happened is known to a majority of the Tapas group. And looking back over only my own posts, I came across the part about the elderly British woman who lived upstairs. Not only did she hear Madeleine and one of the twins weeping the previous evening, she heard them the night of the abduction as well. So how could the Tapas 'listening squad' not have heard them when doing their checks?

I certainly have a theory about what happened, and I had it at the very beginning.
 
shadowdancer said:
But even if somebody cannot be cleared through the investigation, it does not in anyway imply that they are guilty.

You probably couldn't rule out half of the residents and tourists in the town at the time! Anyone who was home alone for example couldn't be ruled out, because they have no witnesses to corroborate that they stayed home and didn't go down to the holiday apartments to abduct Madeleine.
Click to expand...

True, and conversely even if somebody cannot be proven guilty it doesn't mean he didn't actually do it. It just shows that we don't know who did it yet.

The chances are that more people are innocent than not but for someone that assumption would be wrong.
 
Donjeta said:
True, and conversely even if somebody cannot be proven guilty it doesn't mean he didn't actually do it. It just shows that we don't know who did it yet.

The chances are that more people are innocent than not but for someone that assumption would be wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

However, everyone is entitled to be legally considered innocent unless they are proven guilty and to have a fair trial.

I hope that the right person(s) is eventually found guilty and appropriately punished for this crime, whoever they are.
 
shadowdancer said:
Absolutely!

However, everyone is entitled to be legally considered innocent unless they are proven guilty and to have a fair trial.

I hope that the right person(s) is eventually found guilty and appropriately punished for this crime, whoever they are.
Click to expand...

There is no disagreement about that. I just think that implying that the investigators' inability to solve a case and prove anyone guilty means that so-and-so is innocent is basically an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. We would need the police to be able (and willing) to clear people or find the guilty party but frequently they aren't.


Responding to my own earlier question, the context of the quote is :

http://www.smh.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-man-seen-carrying-child-20131015-2vjcz.html

The interviewer:
"Do you always feel conscious that there is a Madeleine shaped hole there?"
Gerry:
When it's special occasion, when you should be your happiest, and Madeleine's not there, that's when it really hits home. Obviously, Madeleine's birthday, that goes without saying...
Then Kate talks about family occasions when you don't have your complete family.
 
That sickens me. My friend's 7 year old daughter was killed 21 years ago. There isn't a day that she doesn't yearn to have her back. She has never had justice for her death and is fighting tirelessly to get the killer brought to justice. How can they say they miss her on special occasions? They should be missing her every day!
 
Donjeta said:
There is lots of material about Madeleine with her parents.


A nightmare reconstructed: New video of Madeleine's last hours with her parents is released as McCanns launch Crimewatch appeal to find their missing daughter six years after she disappeared
Footage to be aired on episode of BBC Crimewatch tomorrow night
Programme will include a reenactment of tennis game with her parents
E-fits of men seen in and around Praia da Luz will also be released
Scotland Yard says it is the most detailed reconstruction yet




article-2456929-18B4B4C600000578-93_634x473.jpg




Perhaps it's just me being dumb but I have no idea how knowing what kind of a bed she slept in is going to help anyone help find her.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...launches-Crimewatch-appeal.html#ixzz2hc9NUGos
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

The allegation was at the time, the bed didn't actually looked slept in.

Listening to Kate talk on the new Crimewatch show, she describes cuddling with Madeleine on the bed while she read her a story.

The bed that is hardly ruffled.

Also, the reconstruction shows two single beds, both unmade...my first thought was "who was in the other one?" :dunno:
 
Morag said:
..it was added to the Mirror site at 21:37 UK time this evening. Among other things, it claims that the Smiths provided information for the e-fits in 2008.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...meline-2372091

In September 2008 a team of private investigators produce two e-fit images of the man seen by the Smiths but they are not made public until this week.
Click to expand...

Martin Smith was very very specific about who he saw that night!!
 
shadowdancer said:
The system must be different in America then. My apologies, I am unfamiliar with the American legal system. :) However, in the EU where the crime actually occurred they are not persons of interest because the term doesn't exist here.

They now have no legal status in the investigation apart from as parents of the victim (ie Madeleine).
Click to expand...

The police have said they do not believe she was kidnappened as there is no evidence to prove that at all. The dogs hit in the apartment and apparently no one had been reported as dieing in that apartment. The dog hit on various items in the apartment and car. They are not looking at anyone else in connection with what happened Madeleine. The problem is some times LE may know who they think committed a crime but cant prove who did or what happened so a prosecution would be pointless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 3,747 (members: 82, guests: 3,665)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
3,665
Total visitors
3,747
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,398
Messages
17,968,350
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top