Madeleine McCann found?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BOESP said:
Linda, imo, the goal of any televised program is ratings and income. None of these stations do this out of the goodness of their heart. If a child is found because of the program that is just more good publicity for the station and network and, probably, some joy in bringing justice -- I don't see it as altruism. Just call me a skeptical inquirer. :seeya:
Click to expand...

the beeb is slightly different in that it is publicly funded and doesn't sell adverts so it doesn't chase ratings in the traditional way

Crime watch has had some great successes over the years
 
Jmoose said:
Yeah-it was posted yesterday. I think nobody went inside-why would you take the chance of waking the children. Near the time Madeleine was discovered to be missing, Mr. Oldfield went to check, and he said he didn't go in
Click to expand...

So I guess this new time line could still be totally off.
 
neesaki said:
So I guess this new time line could still be totally off.
Click to expand...

The time line begins immediately after the last known independently corroborated sighting of a live Madeleine...any other alleged timeline is bogus and relies on a version of events as told by a parent with a motive to lie and who never should have been formally cleared.

All IMO and basic investigation 101


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
gord said:
the beeb is slightly different in that it is publicly funded and doesn't sell adverts so it doesn't chase ratings in the traditional way

Crime watch has had some great successes over the years
Click to expand...

It would really be great if some useful information was obtained in this way-why didn't they do it sooner-did they get some particular information thatinstigated this?
 
neesaki said:
I can't remember where I read that the McCanns thought there would be a "listening service" at this resort, but when they learned there wasn't one, their system of checking in on their children was basically their own " listening service", meaning they went to the room and stood at the door and listened, and if no sounds assumed the children were ok. Do I have this right? If so, could Madeleine not have gone missing earlier?
Click to expand...

It was published in the resort's booklet by mistake. McCanns saw it before they arrived and they counted on it.
I think little before their trip Kate emailed Mark Warner and they told her this service is present in many resorts but not in Portugal. They even got a discount for this reason.
Mark Warner very soon removed the booklet in question.from their site and they also stopped all the listening services in all of their resorts around the world.
 
haden said:
It was published in the resort's booklet by mistake. McCanns saw it before they arrived and they counted on it.
I think little before their trip Kate emailed Mark Warner and they told her this service is present in many resorts but not in Portugal. They even got a discount for this reason.
Mark Warner very soon removed the booklet in question.from their site and they also stopped all the listening services in all of their resorts.
Click to expand...

Why stop the service?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
haden said:
Losing your child is one of the worst things that can happen to someone, if not the worst. It makes the audience panic, and the audience wants solution, an answer and they want it right now.
What happened in Madeleine's case was 'nothing coming out of the investigation' .. people were hungry for stories and very many of these people who were nervously waiting for the news made up theories, their own understanding of the story. This is understandable, it is the human mind.
Many of these stories got bigger and bigger tails and became 'facts'.. things you call 'discrepancies'.
But if you look deeper into the case, if you don't listen to people on the net who get sudden self importance of being able to 'explain their version' of the story, if you use your own mind these wouldn't be discrepancies.
Click to expand...

No, actually, sorry but I've found that I get more truth when I go and look at places like on here as opposed to just what the media - tv and newspapers - give me. There have been many instances when I have seen some video with my own eyes, or read some report, and then I go on CNN or something, and they totally twist it to feed the public's mainstream view of things.

If I hadn't come on here and been given links to police report, etc., and information from people who have actually looked at the evidence, I wouldn't have know about things like: Kate's own fingerprint on the window from the inside, no sign of intruder by door or window, places where cadaver dog indicated, etc..

The media who "interview" these people on national networks don't ask the hard questions....they just want to be able to put some snippets out for several weeks in advance so they can milk the appearance and gain viewership. The people who come on don't want to answer hard questions, they are just there to plug their book and their publicists/handlers have already worked out a deal with the network on what questions they can and can't ask of them.

So, sorry, but I appreciate being able to look at the evidence independentely of what others want me to see.
 
aa9511 said:
No, actually, sorry but I've found that I get more truth when I go and look at places like on here as opposed to just what the media - tv and newspapers - give me. There have been many instances when I have seen some video with my own eyes, or read some report, and then I go on CNN or something, and they totally twist it to feed the public's mainstream view of things.

If I hadn't come on here and been given links to police report, etc., and information from people who have actually looked at the evidence, I wouldn't have know about things like: Kate's own fingerprint on the window from the inside, no sign of intruder by door or window, places where cadaver dog indicated, etc..

The media who "interview" these people on national networks don't ask the hard questions....they just want to be able to put some snippets out for several weeks in advance so they can milk the appearance and gain viewership. The people who come on don't want to answer hard questions, they are just there to plug their book and their publicists/handlers have already worked out a deal with the network on what questions they can and can't ask of them.

So, sorry, but I appreciate being able to look at the evidence independentely of what others want me to see.
Click to expand...

Bravo!!! I concur


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Linda7NJ said:
Why stop the service?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

Nobody knows why but Mark Warner no longer offers listening service anywhere.
This info is from 2007-2008, not sure what is the situation now.
Also Mark Warner has a little guilt of not calling the police straight away. When Madeleine was reported missing they did their own procedure which they have in place before calling the police.
 
aa9511 said:
No, actually, sorry but I've found that I get more truth when I go and look at places like on here as opposed to just what the media - tv and newspapers - give me. There have been many instances when I have seen some video with my own eyes, or read some report, and then I go on CNN or something, and they totally twist it to feed the public's mainstream view of things.

If I hadn't come on here and been given links to police report, etc., and information from people who have actually looked at the evidence, I wouldn't have know about things like: Kate's own fingerprint on the window from the inside, no sign of intruder by door or window, places where cadaver dog indicated, etc..

The media who "interview" these people on national networks don't ask the hard questions....they just want to be able to put some snippets out for several weeks in advance so they can milk the appearance and gain viewership. The people who come on don't want to answer hard questions, they are just there to plug their book and their publicists/handlers have already worked out a deal with the network on what questions they can and can't ask of them.

So, sorry, but I appreciate being able to look at the evidence independentely of what others want me to see.
Click to expand...

One thing is looking at evidence, the other thing is reading the second hand opinions and trusting unreliable sources.
 
haden said:
One thing is looking at evidence, the other thing is reading the second hand opinions and trusting unreliable sources.
Click to expand...


I think its fine to read all opinions
Everyone has one.
We don't have to agree
We all get to make up our own mind

As in so many cases, evidence is limited
It is important to keep fact and fiction separate, so I always look for the IMO at the end of a post

Oh, and I appreciate all of the links
I also appreciate the thoughtful opinions I am reading
 
gord said:
for me its there by the grace of god type thing

I very rarely ever criticise other parents and make comments on Parenting skills - I hear it so much in the play ground

I just done see where this gets us in debating the case - YES most people will agree that their choice of child care was wrong - but it is a world away from extrapolating this to they then must be involved or they are " bad " parents

There has be no evidence in the public domain of any problem with them as parents before this happened. The kids were not on a register , they were it seems normal kids from a normal family - 2 middle class doctors

again if they are involved then the backlash will be huge

but I refuse to vilify them until this has been revealed in court - regardless of the checking system or not - my natural reaction is anger to the perp not to them
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, but I'm sure there are many others, I have come to my own conclusion that it was not an abduction independent of the fact that they left their kids alone. I don't think we are clouded at all by our supposed "prejudice." Obviously the fact that they were alone is integral to the case, so I don't see how we can discuss the case without discussing that, JMO.

I actually think their response to questions regarding that is reasonable. That it happened and if they harp on that and beat themselves up over it, what good is it going to do? I don't have any problem with that. Do I find their response natural? No. Any parent in that situation would beat themselves up over their mistake and think about it and feel guilty about it. That is just natural. Instead of saying something like "yes, in the beginning it was so hard, I would just go over and over in my mind, what if we had been there? What if we hadn't gone to dinner that night? What if we had put them in the creche? I used to think about it a lot, but now I've come to accept it and anyone can make a mistake. We made a mistake. But what good is that going to do for Madeleine? I've learned to get over it and move beyond it." Does that not seem like a more natural answer? Hmmm....let's see....they cannot hire a writer or ask someone to o write out their answers b/c then there would be a witness who can say "yes, they told me to write what they think the innocent response should be.....".

They don't know how to answer those questions because they are not innocent and it was not an abduction.
 
SapphireSteel said:
Service.no service who cares, all these arsehats needed to do was look after their own bloody kids like the rest of us.

It was toooooo hard wasn't it, mummy and daddy need drinkies every single night of their holiday, preferably a hard out session of HOURS not minutes, while their babies cried alone night after night.

Yeah great parents, no laws broken, all good.

Except, it WASN'T and we are all supposed to keep looking for something her parents never looked for, also that shouldn't have disappeared in the first place.

:furious:

I note that most of the IDI's are British, that's no coincidence, the McCann has had the British press in their pocket for years now. The British just haven't read what the rest of the world has read.
Click to expand...

I am not really surprised at this-you see this time after time. I would expect the Portuguese to take the perspective that they have taken, after all, if there was an abduction, it was done on their "watch", and it seems like they would try to find an alternative to criminals running amok in their resort. As far as the IDIs being British, well, the McCanns wouldn't appear to be typical child abuser types (if there is such a thing)-a little like some Americans feel about other Americans who get bagged for crimes overseas. This is IMO only!
 
Sabot said:
Again, only in your opinion. The Law does not agree with you.

It IS just another parenting option that is still in practice today in holiday resorts throughout The World.
Your opinion of their behaviour is only your opinion.

Personally, I am only concerned with your thoughts on the death of a child when you have absolutely no proof that Madeleine is dead.
Click to expand...
The hits by the cadaver dogs are absolutely enough proof for me that Maddie is dead!!
 
The McCanns think she's dead, that's obvious by their Crimewatch appearance.

They didn't once refer to getting her back...they not only think she's dead, they also think she is gone.
 
neesaki said:
I can't remember where I read that the McCanns thought there would be a "listening service" at this resort, but when they learned there wasn't one, their system of checking in on their children was basically their own " listening service", meaning they went to the room and stood at the door and listened, and if no sounds assumed the children were ok. Do I have this right? If so, could Madeleine not have gone missing earlier?
Click to expand...

How would just standing at a door and listening tell them that the kids were ok? It's bothered me since I read it. How do you even know that the kids are in the room just by listening?
:scared:
 
haden said:
It was published in the resort's booklet by mistake. McCanns saw it before they arrived and they counted on it.
I think little before their trip Kate emailed Mark Warner and they told her this service is present in many resorts but not in Portugal. They even got a discount for this reason.
Mark Warner very soon removed the booklet in question.from their site and they also stopped all the listening services in all of their resorts around the world.
Click to expand...

What is a listening service?
 
gord said:
excellent you wont have to deal with those pesky IDI crowd who refuse to call a parent a killer or worse without evidence
Click to expand...

But there is evidence. It may be disregarded and excused by some ... But it's certainly there.... There is actually more pointing toward parental involvement than an intruder.

It's not enough for a conviction but the possibility must be considered by anyone seriously interested in finding Madeleine and justice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Linda7NJ said:
But there is evidence. It may be disregarded and excused by some ... But it's certainly there.... There is actually more pointing toward parental involvement than an intruder.

It's not enough for a conviction but the possibility must be considered by anyone seriously interested in finding Madeleine and justice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

That is your opinion

My opinion and many like me including SY who are actually investigating the case and have access to everything say that there is nothing that points to the parents they have never ever been charged .

Its when I see peopled being smeared as paedophiles that I get angry - not directed at you - just a passing comment

anyway lwe will agree to disagree I feel as until I see some hard facts about little things like

How they did it

where did they hide a body

who was involved

Forensics of said evidence

how they moved the body to the hire car

maybe even a snippet of a time line


I see lots of accusations but not even a theory about the detail
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 209 more.
Total: 4,275 (members: 210, guests: 4,065)

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
4,065
Total visitors
4,275
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,156
Messages
17,964,366
Members
228,705
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top