A rush to judgement?

[Texana]

The McCann changes in opinion or statements don't come as most people's do, with a transition explaining. There's no "We felt safe, but now we realize that..."

This is true for every single inconsistency that the McCanns show. They are never leaving Portugal without Madeleine, then they are headed home.

Gerry and Kate did not feel watched. Then they are sure they are watched.

Kate's sister (or sister-in-law) says that when Kate called her, she said "They've taken her." That comment is repeated in multiple news articles for four months, until this month, when Kate's friends and family announce to the press, "She never said that." No explanation as to why, for four months, the previous "misstatement" went uncorrected.

There is never any kind of transition or explanation, which is not usual for most people. Most people feel compelled to explain changes in their publicly stated positions--even the most ordinary and trivial ones.

When those changes are not explained even with the barest or most minimum of explanation, justification, or transition thought process made clear to others, then the response is always the same: But you said! We have a way as humans, of holding each other accountable for what we say. We do it to each other every day, in our daily lives and even on this forum.

At best, the lack of explanation or transition for changes is a kind of arrogance. At worst, it's something closer to a kind of chameleon like ability to say whatever one needs to say or wants to say right now.

 

[philamena]

.... That's just my opinion, you will certainly hear a differing one here shortly!

bawaaaaa that cracked me up.
How sweet is our freedom of speech.

 

[solidarity]

The McCann changes in opinion or statements don't come as most people's do, with a transition explaining. There's no "We felt safe, but now we realize that..."

This is true for every single inconsistency that the McCanns show. They are never leaving Portugal without Madeleine, then they are headed home.

Gerry and Kate did not feel watched. Then they are sure they are watched.

Kate's sister (or sister-in-law) says that when Kate called her, she said "They've taken her." That comment is repeated in multiple news articles for four months, until this month, when Kate's friends and family announce to the press, "She never said that." No explanation as to why, for four months, the previous "misstatement" went uncorrected.

There is never any kind of transition or explanation, which is not usual for most people. Most people feel compelled to explain changes in their publicly stated positions--even the most ordinary and trivial ones.

When those changes are not explained even with the barest or most minimum of explanation, justification, or transition thought process made clear to others, then the response is always the same: But you said! We have a way as humans, of holding each other accountable for what we say. We do it to each other every day, in our daily lives and even on this forum.

At best, the lack of explanation or transition for changes is a kind of arrogance. At worst, it's something closer to a kind of chameleon like ability to say whatever one needs to say or wants to say right now.

Very logical train of thought. I agree.

 

[ThoughtFox]

If my child showed curiosity in a beer/wine, I would certainly let him take a sip. Personally, I think that children focus more on "prohibited" things. Most children would find the taste quite "yukky" and quickly move on.

P.S. This was what I did with my own son...he is 25 today and a non-drinker!!

For me that's not the issue. I realize that in other countries kids drink at earlier ages, and I'm not prudish about that.

The question would be whether you would let your young child drink enough beer to pass out cold.

Besides, if the drug stories are true, and considering the very young age of these children, they weren't given a choice. They couldn't spit out the medication.

 

[AfterMidnight]

For me that's not the issue. I realize that in other countries kids drink at earlier ages, and I'm not prudish about that.

The question would be whether you would let your young child drink enough beer to pass out cold.

Besides, if the drug stories are true, and considering the very young age of these children, they weren't given a choice. They couldn't spit out the medication.

And what happens if the drug stories aren't true? Do we let the kiddies drink until they just get tipsy?

I don't quite follow the reasoning here. Maybe you can explain?

 

[ThoughtFox]

And what happens if the drug stories aren't true? Do we let the kiddies drink until they just get tipsy?

I don't quite follow the reasoning here. Maybe you can explain?

I was responding to Pinto's posts, and maybe I didn't follow her reasoning either, sorry.

I think the drug stories are fairly well established - have the McCanns denied any of it lately?

 

[AfterMidnight]

No, I don't believe they've denied it lately, but one of them did a while back. I don't recall them admitting it either. Is there a link for them admitting drugging the children, one we can trust?

Did they give the children beer in addition to leaving them alone?

 

[CaliKid]

No, I don't believe they've denied it lately, but one of them did a while back. I don't recall them admitting it either. Is there a link for them admitting drugging the children, one we can trust?

Did they give the children beer in addition to leaving them alone?

It wasn't a charge, AM, it was a more broadly-discussed subject of cultural differences. The question was brought up about giving a child a beer and posters were asked if we would give a drink to a child. For instance, in some parts of Europe it's considered acceptable within a family to give children watered-down wine as part of a meal.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Calikid: Thanks ~ that's how I understood it. A hypothetical about cultural differences.

If we say everything that is done in other countries is "acceptable" because it just "is," then we are on a slippery slope of logic, I think.

Of course, there is that old saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," and I guess some folks believe that about the Mark Warner Resort.

Although, I will point out once more that they had a nightly care service that was going on that night until 10 p.m.

 

[Edwards20]

Did I read this correctly ?? You would let your children drink/taste beer at the age of 5 ?

 

[csds703]

It wasn't a charge, AM, it was a more broadly-discussed subject of cultural differences. The question was brought up about giving a child a beer and posters were asked if we would give a drink to a child. For instance, in some parts of Europe it's considered acceptable within a family to give children watered-down wine as part of a meal.

I was invited to dinner at my bosses house for a holiday and there were little kids there. I think they were 2 and 4. Anyway, there were shotglasses with wine just sitting on the mantle and the kids kept walking over and drinking from them. When I questioned it, they said that was a normal custom where they are from (middle east) and that is why "they" don't have alcohol and substance abuse problems.:hand:
In my snippy sarcastic way, I replied that it's illegal here and I moved the tray.

 

[strach304]

I was told the same thing CSDS by a woman from El Salvador. Alcohol, cigarettes, etc. no laws against children buying them and that's why they don't have the problems we do. Sounds more to me like they aren't teaching them the dangers involved to permit it.

 

[gord]

I am fairly well travelled in Europe and the UK and giving 2 to four years old booze is not common whatsoever -

Giving 13 and 14 year olds a glass of very watered down wine is more so - but mainly in continental Europe as oppossed to the UK

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I do think that the fact they left the kids alone has coloured a lot of peoples views - I can accept that . But making a very bad call on babysitting dpes not make a person a murderer .

I still think the most logical answer is a very quick and planned abduction by person or persons unkown who has their eye on her for a few days

 

[IrishMist]

I am fairly well travelled in Europe and the UK and giving 2 to four years old booze is not common whatsoever -

Giving 13 and 14 year olds a glass of very watered down wine is more so - but mainly in continental Europe as oppossed to the UK

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I do think that the fact they left the kids alone has coloured a lot of peoples views - I can accept that . But making a very bad call on babysitting dpes not make a person a murderer .

I still think the most logical answer is a very quick and planned abduction by person or persons unkown who has their eye on her for a few days

Well said, Gord, great post! :clap:

 

[april4sky]

I am fairly well travelled in Europe and the UK and giving 2 to four years old booze is not common whatsoever -

Giving 13 and 14 year olds a glass of very watered down wine is more so - but mainly in continental Europe as oppossed to the UK

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I do think that the fact they left the kids alone has coloured a lot of peoples views - I can accept that . But making a very bad call on babysitting dpes not make a person a murderer .

I still think the most logical answer is a very quick and planned abduction by person or persons unkown who has their eye on her for a few days

I agree gord. Great post. :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[ThoughtFox]

I am still quite surprised to see the amount of people who seemed convinced of their guilt without any firm evidence , any motive , any witnesses or any body

but I suppose that everyone is just basing their views on gut instincts and the many leaks and sensational tabloid reporting .

I came back to Websleuths to read about this case when I found out the parents had suddenly been named "Arguido." That's not sensational reporting, but a fact.

All the months before that, I gave the parents the benefit of the doubt, and never believed they were guilty of anything. As I caught up reading, I realized there was alot more to it than I thought.

 

[SleuthMom]

Kate and Gerry Mc Canns have been named official suspects in their daughter's disappearance. This does not make them guilty of murder neither innocent but a mantle of doubts and inconsistencies in their testimonies is what brought up these charges. So let's not pretend as "we have no facts whatsover", YES, WE DO HAVE THAT FACT. THEY ARE SUSPECTS IN MADDIE'S DISAPPEARANCE. As far as I am concerned, that fact has not changed.

 

[gord]

Kate and Gerry Mc Canns have been named official suspects in their daughter's disappearance. This does not make them guilty of murder neither innocent but a mantle of doubts and inconsistencies in their testimonies is what brought up these charges. So let's not pretend as "we have no facts whatsover", YES, WE DO HAVE THAT FACT. THEY ARE SUSPECTS IN MADDIE'S DISAPPEARANCE. As far as I am concerned, that fact has not changed.

so was robert Murat a suspect - but little has been written about him compared to the mountains of stuff on the mccaans -


I know it has been repeated but the suspect thing in Portugal has to be done in order to question them from a legal basis - it is not the same as being charged - it can be almost the same as " helping police with their enquiries " as we often see in the UK .

The main fact is that the Mccaans are still sitting at home in in England - if the police had anything - anything that was firm and definite - they would be charged and taken on to the next stage . The Mccaans went down the high profile media route as I assume they thought that was the best way to get her back - the down side is that they have left themselves open to every theory that we can think off - not just here but in other forums as well

Unfortunatey in abduction by strangers the police literaly have no firm clues - there was probably enough to look at the mccaans closely and they would have been negligent in their job if they had not - but at present I still have not seen enough and so it seems have the police .

I suppose it is now just a waiting game until the next news story breaks

 

[SleuthMom]

so was robert Murat a suspect - but little has been written about him compared to the mountains of stuff on the mccaans -

I suppose because after all the searches they made on his apartment they never found anything, and that includes "cadaver" smell. The only reason Murrat still a suspect is because he changed his alibi (maybe out of fear, who knows). Nevertheless, nothing was "found" on him as compared to what was allegedly found on the Mc Canns. Hence, the shift in the investigation.

I know it has been repeated but the suspect thing in Portugal has to be done in order to question them from a legal basis - it is not the same as being charged - it can be almost the same as " helping police with their enquiries " as we often see in the UK .

Arguidos are given legal protection and can refuse to answer any question. At the same same, it also gives the police more freedom in the questioning process. I know it is not the same as being charged but hey, is not the same as being 100% sure that they are innocent. The fact they were made arguidos proves that there are CERTAIN things that just do not make sense in their testimonies/evidence that the police may have found on them.

The main fact is that the Mccaans are still sitting at home in in England - if the police had anything - anything that was firm and definite - they would be charged and taken on to the next stage .

Oh, I absolutely agree with you on this. I personally think they have some sort of evidence but not strong enough at the moment to do anything about it.

The Mccaans went down the high profile media route as I assume they thought that was the best way to get her back - the down side is that they have left themselves open to every theory that we can think off - not just here but in other forums as well

I think the Mc Canns are a very smart couple and they knew exactly how to used the Media to their advantage BUT I think they did not expected a change on the investigation this quick so now they are caught in the middle not knowing really how to use the same Media they once begged for help. Hence, you hear from them saying they do not want the focus to be on them BUT in finding Madeleine, yet they released wedding pics and communion pics of themselves which contradicts what they previously said.
Personally, I think they know exactly what they are doing and they knew some of the issues the Portuguese Police had as handling this case in the way it should have happened in the beginning and they took full advantage of it and they are now enjoying it because of certain mistakes done in the investigation they are now in a position where they cannot really be charged unless there is strong evidence against them. They tend to forget that no matter the outcome of this case, if Maddie is never found, they will always be seen with a mantle of suspicion.

Unfortunatey in abduction by strangers the police literaly have no firm clues - there was probably enough to look at the mccaans closely and they would have been negligent in their job if they had not - but at present I still have not seen enough and so it seems have the police .

I personally think they did not suspect the Mc Canns from day one at all. Again, two foreigners, British doctors, certain lifestyle...etc...people tend to commit the huge mistake of assuming based on looks or social status, when they did start suspecting them, I think it was a little too late.

I suppose it is now just a waiting game until the next news story breaks

I hate to be a pessimistic and I really hope I am wrong on this. I think Maddie will not be found and the Mc Canns will not be charged. It will be one of those cases that will literally remain in the air and an open investigation for years.

Little the guilty parts know that after this life, they DO have to give an account to someone bigger. :furious:

 

[Rino]

No, I don't believe they've denied it lately, but one of them did a while back. I don't recall them admitting it either. Is there a link for them admitting drugging the children, one we can trust?

Are there any you would trust