14 July 2010

Madeleine McCann is a missing person...





83 comments:

  1. So if the FCO rightly classify Maddie as a "missing person" based on established facts, was "he who lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth" at it again when he said this in an interview:

    ---------------------------------
    "When the Foreign Office sent him to assist the McCanns – as he insists it would have helped any family in that situation – he asked difficult questions. "I was assured that from the perspective of the British authorities, this was a rare case of stranger abduction."....."
    ---------------------------------

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/clarence-mitchell-i-am-a-decent-human-being-if-i-can-help-them-i-will-1634738.html

    ShuBob

    ReplyDelete
  2. well.well.well now we have it in writing that madeleine is classed as missing and not abducted,hope the mccanns and the tapas 7 and of course mitchell read this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. :)}

    The parents are certainly entitled to offer their own version of events namely that Madeleine was, as it were, abducted which in spite of the facts of the investigation, remains a probability - mathematically at least, the probability of any conceivable event is always greater than zero.

    By the same token, the investigators and the public are entitled to make plausible inferences from the facts of the investigation or have their own opinions - particularly since there were strong pointers in the investigation that seem to suggest the child was not abducted - none of which conclusive though. Anyone is entitled to the benefit of a doubt.

    What is sad is to observe the McCann's sense of "pride and prejudice" driving them to try to humiliate and profit from those they deem "inferior"and/or gullible. "Because I was there!" Mrs. McCann catch phrase is a statement of dogma. Dogma is one thing and pragmatism another.

    Whether the McCann's er...how to put it? Machievellian strategy will suceed in exorcising their sense of guilt and turn public sympathy in their favour is anyone's guess.

    My own opinion is the literate McCann's should write an expose - a book offering plausible and informed alternatives to the FACTS of the investigation and the so-called "allegations" (inferences made under the freedom of expression) and provide the public with their own deconstruction of events - besides those given in statements for judicial consumption.

    Instead they have opted for a course of "pride and prejudice", contempt of "third world" justice, "law games" and PR "fireworks" -
    all of which the public execrates.

    No doubt the McCann's will argue that the end justifies the means, which brings us back to the argument of consequentialism versus deontology and virtue ethics. Christianity, I believe, is about the latter two.

    "I don't agree either but I absolve myself". Enter the postmodern world of Fernando Pessoa...

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, there is evidence of a faked abduction and yes Madeleine is still missing with regard to the whole world except for 2 people at least.

    http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  5. AC: When Kate states that she "was there", it is interesting to ask when exactly was she "there", and where exactly was she? This sentence brings back one of the most incredible statements that were ever made - officially! - in this case: Public prosecutor Magalhães e Menezes, in his closing dispatch, mentions that Madeleine's parents were "not there" when their daughter disappeared. This, after recognising that it was impossible to pinpoint when, how, why and by whose hand the child had vanished!
    You make an invaluable point, though: the debate about Maddie's destiny should be open and respectful and tolerant of all opinions. Unfortunately, anyone who approaches said debate under any presumption except that the child was abducted and her parents are the victims of police incompetence and media vilification, risks ending up inside a courtroom...

    ReplyDelete
  6. The case is a mystery.
    That extreme support by the authorities of both countries and all those dubious manipulations make me believe in various conspiration theories I never thought about so far.
    The complexness of that cover up we'd watched the last years is giantic.
    When the case is solved one day there will be a vast documentation.
    All inmho, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  7. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOO!
    Repeat after me: Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted, Madeleine McCann was abducted...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, well, well, it looks like Louise Edwards will have some explaining to do to CM... This is not what she was supposed to state... ~x( :))

    Many thanks Joana for everything you do! Many thanks to Astro and all the other members of the team too!

    TTS

    ReplyDelete
  9. "no evidence" that Madeleine was abducted.

    So, it just goes to show what the FO thinks of Jane Tanner's morphing Eggman and Kate McCann's mantra 'I knew immediately she'd been abducted'.

    This is evidence of lying by witnesses. Where's the action, FO?

    ReplyDelete
  10. no evidence to support an abduction,so why is gamble of the ceop up the mccanns ar***.definatly some thing very wrong here

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon 6

    Now that the former investigators have stated in court their belief that Madeleine died in the apartment, the lawyers of the McCanns have to back off trying to stop the rest of us telling this.

    It is not an offence to assert what is the offical view of the investigators that Madeleine is dead, and therefore no point in chasing the bogus sightings of Madeleine.

    The McCanns are the ones who should be stopped from saying Madeleine was abducted, and soliciting money on the strength of saying it when they have no proof whatsoever that she was.

    It was said in court that the McCanns abduction scenario is a fairy story. That is what is believed by those in a position to have greater knowledge than any of us have. That includes the pro McCann camp.

    Who are we to argue against the experts who were investigating the case and have reached the conclusion that Madeleine is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regarding comment No.8

    Whomever made that comment should really have their IP address passed on to SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency) as they might be interested to learn what else this person has on their conscience that may be of interest to them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For those of us who have watched the collusion of the British forces in Northern Ireland with loyalist paramilitaries, the McCann case appears to merely be more of the same. For those of us who believe that Dr. David Kelly was murdered by the very government he served because he was in the way of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie that took the UK into Iraq, the McCann case is simply more of the same.

    Remember former US President Bush's comment about the "axis of evil"? I'd say the United Kingdom qualifies.

    The "axis" is a string running through the McCann case and it runs through so many things the Brits have done - everything spins around that string and the cover-up in the McCann case will continue, just as the cover-up in the state-sanctioned murder of Pat Finucane will continue and the cover-up of the Kelly murder will continue.

    People like Jim McCann (Ceartais) who is campaigning over the use of CR gas by the Brits in the Long Kesh prison (IRA prisoners) will not be getting answers, and those of us asking about why the McCanns are being protected by the British government will not be getting answers.

    The British government cannot allow the truth to come out because the truth will expose that British citizens are actually controlled by MI5/MI6 and not by their politicians.

    Even the Sean Hoey case proves this. (Omagh bomb suspect). Low Copy DNA evidence not allowed in his case and then the rules were changed back to allowing LC DNA in all cases after Hoey's acquittal. Ask the McCanns what they know about Sean Hoey if you see them - it was Hoey's lawyer the McCanns contacted for advice.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon 13

    I think the person who made the comment was being sarcastic in that it may mean we will be in for yet more intense brainwashing by the McCanns telling us over and over again that Madeleine was abducted.

    The McCanns wont want it getting around that Madeleine is not considered by the authorities to have been abducted.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Amazing....no evidence of abduction, the child is missing...at what point is it 'missing presumed dead'?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The letter above states:

    You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.


    LOL! What was GM's mantra in Lisbon for the court hearing? Oh that's right:

    A thesis without evidence to support it is meaningless!!

    Yet CEOP (who are now in charge of missing children!) stated this in a reply e-mail:


    "The current position regarding the McCanns is that they are the parents of a missing child who is presumed to have been abducted: that being the case anything that Gerry McCann has to say will be of interest to those who work in this area and will attend the conference"

    "An email response from CEOP

    The following email was received in response to a query asking why Gerry McCann had been invited to speak at the conference:

    Full e-mail can be read here:
    http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/ceop-jim-gamble-f158/ceop-does-not-endorse-mccann-claim-of-abduction-t7479.htm


    Now IIRC the PJ who retain primacy in this investigation have not archived this case as an abduction also the letter above has stated quite clearly it is not considered as an abduction, yet CEOP state the above to a member of the public! So who exactly is presuming MBM has been abducted? If it is CEOP. Why are they now in charge of missing children?

    zz

    ReplyDelete
  17. CEOP are not in charge of Missing children.

    Properdad

    ReplyDelete
  18. So the Foreign Office conclude that there was no evidence of an abduction, and therefore the PJ, who said the same, were not the bunglers that TM made them out to be.

    I guess that leaves the way open for the authorities to question the liars that obstructed the course of justice by pretending that there was an abduction, then.

    Doesn't it?


    Angela

    ReplyDelete
  19. The way I look at it is this. Madeleine seems to have disappeared under very mysterious circumstances. As way of explanation the parents have decided that in their opinion she must have been abducted. Now if on studying the circumstances of the case, a person comes to the conclusion that Madeleine is unlikely to have been abducted. Surely that is reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How can Gamble simply dismiss the findings of the best sniffer dogs in the world who are telling that Madeleine is dead, in favour of the McCanns and their version of an abduction. An abduction fairy story according to the real cops who investigated, for which there is no proof whatsoever.

    The guy needs to get his head out of the sand or wherever he's got it, and get over the McCanns.

    Because of this it is impossible to take Gamble seriously. It is a great disappointment, because some of us had high hopes of him that he was seriously trying to discover the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So on 14 December 2009, after the most sofisticated, specialized, espensive, long and wide investigation done by Pj, British police ( including Scot.Yard), Europol, Interpol and many other local and official polices in the world, MADELEINE STILL ONLY A MISSING PERSON AND NOT AN "ABUCTED", "KIDNAPPED", "SNATCHED", "VANNISHED" Person, from her bed when she was peaceful sleeping.
    After Millions of Euros, Pounds and dollars, raised in a quick and fraudulent way to feed Top Lawyers and Top Private detectives, she did not manage to change her status- still just a missing person. And NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE ANY ABDUCTION.
    WELL, That absence of evidences it is Madeleine little way to made justice against her parents- THEY HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO GET MONEY AND PAY ALL THE VULTURES THEY FEED... FOR MANY YEARS. The case is faraway from be closed, a very unpleasent situation for her parents and some others involved on the cover-up. AND HER BROTHERS WILL BE GROWING UP KNOWING ALL THE STORIES SURROUNDING THE DISAPEARENCE OF THEIR SISTER AND THE FAKE ABDUCTION PLANNED BY THEIR PARENTS- Without the work of any court, justice is being served in a very cold way- people who serve some years in prison to pay their guilt can walk free after, but the Mccann's will live inside the prison of their consciences and inside the conscience of all society for all their lifes. Madeleine crime never will go away, in the entire world. I don't know, how this parents can live with such crime and still asking people to search their daughter and feed their lies with money and fake sights? They really failed not only as parents, but also as humans.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Go and look on this site. It's all about the desensitizing and encouragement of child sexual abuse aimed at people who live in Germany.

    Make sure you have something to be sick into as it will turn your stomach just as it did mine. How anyone can encourage child abuse is beyond me.

    http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=5758

    Evelyn60 on Twitter

    ReplyDelete
  23. Apparently the Foreign Office has a different opinion as the Home Office, could it be?
    Are the British authorities split in their view of the case and the abduction tale?

    ReplyDelete
  24. If the first UK diplomat to arrive on the scene when Madeleine was reported missing was suspicious of the McCanns, and reported back as such and was then promptly removed, who was behind this?

    It would be interesting to know why there were people who were suspicious of these parents from the get go.

    What was it that was not ringing true?

    ReplyDelete
  25. All of us know that Maddie is missing. Rather more likely, a missing and dead person, right ? Thats my opinion anyway, are the macs going to sue me ? Dnt give a d...mn.
    Jamar

    ReplyDelete
  26. Who requested the information about the abducted children abroad, was an UNIVERSITY STUDENT ( available at Mccannfiles).

    Was that the reason behind Mccann's campaign ( the students holiday package) asking many personal and private information regarding the students who buy their campaign? Is that campaign, a carrot to catch and attract the author of the e-mail, interested in a very dangerous information, for the MCCANN'S?
    Mccann's always tried to tie all knots and that student can be very dangerous if he/she went inside uncomfortable facts of the investigation. Mccann's campaign sounds to me as a way to frame and try to target students who want to understand what was behind the most fantastic stories of abductions. MADELEINE WILL BE FOR LONG TIME THE TOP ONE AND A VERY INTERESTING AND PASSIONATE INVESTIGATION, special if done without pressures and corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Madeleine is a death and missing person who never ever had that condition if her parents took good care about her and don't "let her down" allowing her to be "gone".
    Sue me, if you can prove I'm wrong. And SUE trillions in the world with same feeling grabbed directly from Mccann's mouths and behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The FO has just said exactly the same as the Portuguese prosecutor - not enough evidence to even decide what kind of crime has been committed. It's no big deal really, especially as the HO and CEOP think it WAS an abduction.

    ReplyDelete
  29. When are the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell going to be sued for telling people that Madeleine was abducted, and for soliciting money from the public on the strength of that, when the official investigators say she died in the apartment and they have been informed of this.

    The McCanns have never proven an abduction as a FACT, nor can they. Yet they have done everything possible to stop the public from learning that the investigators believe Madeleine to be dead.

    They have since been sent millions, and none of it is accountable to the public, simply their say so that they are spending it on searching for Madeleine, when we know that they have also been paying their mortgage out of it.

    What else have they been paying for?

    Are they going to tell the public where the money has actually gone and not some sweeping broad overview of a statement.

    Now they are saying it is also being used to support their 'extended family'. What exactly does that entail?

    How about coughing up some money yourselves McCanns and try downsizing that house of yours for a start, instead of taking money from pensioners and schoolchildren who have far less money than you and your family.

    Or are you down to your last half a million yet again!

    ReplyDelete
  30. :)] Greetings Anon 6!

    Point taken. I was recalling a video I saw of Dr. Kate McCann snapping at a Portuguese journalist outside the Palace of Justice early this year. I took it to mean: "I was the first on the scene. I was the first to notice Madeleine's had vanished. Therefore I know she was abducted." The implication being: "You must take my word for it". This is a dogmatic statement no matter how pragmatic it may seem from her own point of view. My pragmatic position (and probably that of the investigators and the informed public) is: "I was not there. I do not know. If I consider the facts of the investigation (somewhat made inconclusive) it could have been the cover-up of an accident, it could have been an abductor or any other unknown". Notwithstanding and given the evidence gathered during the investigation I have to sympathize with Dr. Amaral's expert position even if inferences he made can be made in other directions (hypotheses). My humble opinion.

    What is simple to see is that Dr. Amaral is being gagged (and exploited, for lack of a better term) on a rather one sided interpretation of Portuguese Human Rights' legislation namely the McCann's right to a "good name". I trust a more mature and "politically INcorrect" judge will, when the time comes, be able to re-address this expensive detail.

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ post #28, you make a very good point!

    @ post #29, who says the HO believe in the abduction theory?

    ShuBob

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon 5

    Abduction not a probability, mathmatically or otherwise. No evidence to support probability, its barely a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The sniffer dogs have indicated that Madeleine is dead and they have never been wrong so why should they be in the case of the McCanns. Why would somebody 'abduct' a dead person? They wouldn't, and they didn't. Madeleine never left the holiday apartment alive.

    Madeleine died and her body was hidden, and the investigators were hoping the McCanns would give up the cadaver.

    That is not going to happen, but if the public knew it was a dead Madeleine that should be searched for maybe that would be a start to finding her.

    Who is searching for a dead Madeleine at this time? Correct me if I am wrong, but nobody is.

    Instead we are being fed the bogus sightings of a possible live Madeleine by the lazy irresponsible UK media, all courtesy of Team McCann who sure know how to spin it, even though it gets dafter each time.

    And each time, nobody in authority says a word to stop this farce.

    No wonder the McCanns are so bold as to denigrate the PJ and the UK cops who worked on the case.

    Bravo Dr Amaral and those others who are attempting to get the truth out. May you ultimately have every success. Shame there are not many more like you in authority, and shame on the judiciary who should be upholding freedom of speech and not helping to stamp it into the ground.

    Here's hoping the tide will soon turn in this case as no doubt the enemy of truth is beavering away in secret trying to silence all who dare to say what they don't want known.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous #35, thank you for your comment. You sum the case up perfectly, and I am sure that in the same manner that you reflect my exact thoughts and feelings, you reflect those of many, many people who will always refuse to be blind and deaf to reality. It is so much easier to believe in the McCanns fairytale (although it becomes increasingly harder to discern WHICH exactly is the current version of said fairytale...), than to inform oneself thoroughly, and to reach one's own conclusions. It's comfortable to believe that Maddie is out there, somewhere, leading a perfectly happy (?) life in the hands of a caring couple of strangers. It is far less comfortable to think that maybe she is dead, and that her death was not a peaceful passage into another dimension. It is extremely uncomfortable to consider the possibility that her own parents have not cooperated fully with the police, that they have not been entirely open and truthful about that night (the Prosecutor stated this in his final report), thus potentially jeopardizing the investigation and putting their own daughter's life at risk.
    If there ever was a strange case after the JonBenet case, then this is the one. I just hope that the similarities do not mean that like in the American case, this one will remain unsolved for at least one decade...
    Justice and Truth have to be above everything else, especially when we're dealing with children.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Daily Wail is once more reporting about a case that bears NO similarities with Madeleine's case whatsoever, as "giving hope" to the McCanns. The case of Amber Nicklas can only "give hope" to the McCanns if they are able to produce ONE SINGLE piece of evidence to show that their daughter was abducted.

    Which I think they (or anyone else for that matter) will find impossible to do.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1294990/Missing-girl-Amber-Nicklas-rescued-Phoenix.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. Poster 35 and 36

    My English is not good enough to express, but I am one of those many for whom you both reflect my exact thoughts and feelings. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. the daily mail is a disgrace in its bum licking of the mccanns.shame they dont ask the mccanns where the proof is of an abduction and not just because they say so,or better still read the files and see how the mccanns and tapas 7 have lied through thier back teeth to keep the acduction fairy tale alive.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Porque é que os McCann insistem em que todos ao redor do mundo já descobriu ? É inútil fazer crer uma história de conto . Seria melhor para eles para pôr termo a esse incidente tragig e não tentar ir com lies.Nobody estúpido acreditar -los. Quanto mais eles insistem em sua mentira , mais elas são guilty.Do admitir que sofreu um accident.Do admitir que eles são culpados. Não admitem que induldged sobre o papel dos pais e estão envolvidas em um acidente. Continuando com essa teoria estúpida de rapto «» apenas torná-los mais envolvidos em um crime.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This is a synopsis of this case.

    No evidence of an abductor; no signs of a break in; no finger prints; no foot prints; no evidence whatsoever of there being an abduction.

    Cadaver dogs indicated someone died in that apartment. There is no record of anyone having died in that apartment. Out of ten vehicles, the cadaver dogs alerted their owner to the vehicle being used by the McCann couple.

    The McCanns have not fully cooperated with the police. Their account of what took place is not substantiated by the physical evidence and is in contradiction to statements made by their friends. The stories given by the McCanns and their friends keep changing.

    The police have been thwarted in their attempts to obtain information on the McCann couple and their friends.

    So, what do you think? Are they innocent?

    guerra

    ReplyDelete
  40. There was indeed an abduction, it was the abduction of truth and reason. However, when such an abduction occurs, it means that what has been removed, has been placed in another place.It hasn't been destroyed or changed, it still exists, and will be found eventually.

    Truth, but not justice, has an uncanny way of breaking through the smoke-screen of lies and deceit. As in the words of Winston Churchill, truth is so important it requires a bodyguard of lies.

    The truth of this sorry saga will out!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Of course they are innocent, Guerra.

    They are innocent because the UK authorities say so.

    They are innocent because the Portuguese authorities say so.

    They are innocent because they themselves say so.

    In a case where the police and the judicial system built an entire investigation on the statements of two arguidos and their group of friends, what did anyone expect?

    A case in which the police thoroughly investigated the life of a decoy, his friends and family as if they were on top of Interpol's most wanted list, but failed to obtain the most basic background information about two arguidos - background information which, I dare say, would have been of relevance especially in the case of an abduction! -, what did anyone expect?

    In a case where the chief investigator was pushed aside and his successor only perfomed ONE diligence (that had already been set in motion when he got there anyway), what did anyone expect?

    Madeleine ran out of luck, both at the end of her short life, and after her death.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anon 43

    Good point and reminder there about how Murat was investigated from every angle possible by the cops, but the information requested by the investigators for the McCanns produced only one sheet of paper from the UK.

    Plus, let's not forget the McCanns outright lie of saying they had no credit cards and then it turned out they did. Would Murat have ever got away with that? No, he wouldn't, nor would any of the rest of us if we had tried that on.

    The McCanns showed there and then they are capable of saying whatever they want to the investigators, and even if they get caught out in a lie, so what!

    The same with Clarence Mitchell who was accused by the PJ of lying with every tooth in his head.

    Are there no laws in Portugal to have had people who lie to the investigators, or who interfere with the truth of an investigation, charged with some offence or other?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Another story of a missing child has now been reported in the media,there was no report when it first went missing,are they now trying to make money out of it. Is Mitchell upset that this story has come out showing that the family was involved and people will think that thats what happened to Madeleine, the whole world knows that she is dead and died in the flat,that they wanted her dead and waited until they were in Portugal.They saw that Mr.Amaral was taken off the case because there were a lot involved who didn't want the truth to come out. Would Mr. Smith please come forward and tell the truth of what he saw so that justice can be done. E.Germany.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well Said anon 45, Mr Smith why have you not made more of a scene about what and who you think you saw, was it after brian Kennedy/ Jon corner visit that has kept you from speaking out. Little Madeleine, does she not deserve a decent burial or to be found? does she not deserve that her parents who use her as a money spinning machine, are shown to be what they really are?? Sell your house Gerry and Kate to pay for searching outside Luz to search for her body or find the hellish lair she is encaptured in. You visit Luz, but not search for Maddie, you raise millions but are too mean to spend some on a real search for your daughter. No gerry you will never become that superstar, rubbing shoulders with the famous is easy, we can all do it,without using a missing child, with enough bluff you can be anything you want, and you have plenty of that. I am so happy that neither you or your wife is the doctor of any of my family, they would have left you a long time ago. Dear gerry and Kate, do you get visited at night? RIP Madeleine

    ReplyDelete
  45. I don't think Mr Smith can be blamed for anything.

    After all, while all the Tapas friends were refusing to come back for a reconstruction, Mr Smith and Murat were only too happy to do this.

    That's ironic, them being strangers and would help, and the others, people who actually knew Madeleine were refusing to help. So what does that say about the Tapas friends. What a bunch of people they are! If they had nothing to hide, what was the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  46. The answer to the bringing justice for Madeleine lies firmly in the hands of the Portuguese justice system.
    They and they alone can re-open and re-investigate the events that lead up to and caused the death of Madeleine McCann, then and only then will the guilty be punished.
    Remember that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

    Letter from Iberia

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have a theory. In his statement, Father Pacheco states that he met the McCanns for the first time after May the 3rd and I believe him.
    There is a 12th person in this crime (9+Pacheco, English priest)and the 12th is the key, that man who gave the church key to the McCanns.
    IMO, that man manipulated Father Pacheco on that night, got the key of the church and waited for Gerry with the body.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Poster 48 is exactly right. Unfortunately there are people in high places in Portugal involved in this evil cover-up. The Portugese Government in 2007 were complicant with the British Government in sabotaging the investigation and having the McCanns flown out of Portugal when they were made arguidos. The Portugese have defied their own constitution and put an injunction on Mr Amaral's book. Sadly,I cannot see Mr Amaral overturning the injunction at the forthcoming libel trial.The McCanns would not be taking action against him unless they were supremely confident of winning the case. Mr Amaral must know that political forces that are working against him. I would not be at all surprised if he cuts his losses and settles out of court with the McCanns. He can only do so much.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Poster No 50
    I do so hope that your opinion that Mr Amaral will settle the McCann’s action against him “out of court” is not correct.

    For if he does the McCann’s and the British press, sky news etc will spin this into to following>
    1) Mr Amaral did commit libel etc (which I and most thinking people do not believe to be true)
    2) The McCann are innocent in every way and Mr Amaral's settling out of court proves it (which I and most thinking people do not believe to be true)
    3) The Portuguese police are incompetent (which I and most thinking people do not believe to be true)
    4) Madeleine was abducted and is alive (which I and most thinking people do not believe to be true)
    5) The McCann’s were acting as normal parents in leaving there children alone un unprotected in a strange apartment within a country strange to them (which I and most thinking people do not believe to be true)
    6) The McCann’s will say that they will continue to utilise the fund only for the search for Madeline (which I and most thinking people do not believe to be true)

    It would also suggest that the Portuguese system of JUSTICE is indeed corrupt and is controlled by and not independent of the government
    It would in my opinion mean that the “revolution” in Portugal had been for nothing as corruption is still endemic

    All in all a terrible outcome if Mr Amaral settled out of court.
    For Mr Amaral, the Portuguese people and all we Europeans, in particular those who’s fathers and mothers died in wars to ensure tyranny was abolished, that justice prevails and is a tool of the common people.

    Letter from Iberia

    ReplyDelete
  50. Poster 51 I agree with everything you say. The British gutter media will indeed have a field day if Mr Amaral settles with the McCanns. They will be equally triumphant if the libel trail goes ahead and the McCanns win. I hope Mr Amaral does not settle out-of-court with the McCanns, but I would not condemn him if he did. I've seen and read nothing to indicate that the forthcoming libel trail would be fair and impartial.
    I would finally add that even if by some miracle Mr Amaral does win his case the British gutter media will STILL have a field-day. They will spin that is a biased decision by a Portugese Judiciary supporting a former Portugese Police Officer and try to brainwash the Britsh Public and discredit the book.
    Poster 50

    ReplyDelete
  51. If I remember rightly Dr Amaral has already said he would never pay the McCanns any money, and would appeal the issue to the EU Court. This could go on for years.

    If so, the McCanns are going to need to wring yet more money from the public to pay for their legal expenses.

    Hopefully by then even more people will have heard about the findings of the investigation and the death of Madeleine, and will tell them to go sell their own belongings and use their own money because they wont be believing the abduction fairy story.

    The McCanns have far more money than most people in the UK, but have they ever spent one penny of it on their supposed search for Madeleine. Or would they ever spend any of their own money? Now that would be interesting to see if the donations dry up.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Has anybody heard how the Murat V Tanner case is progressing?

    Here's hoping Murat would not be willing to settle out of court with that one, and that he goes on to win his case against Tanner.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Poster 49
    Are you saying that the body of Madeleine could have been taken to the church by her father and then put into a coffin along with the body of a dead person that was destined to be cremated?
    If so it would explain the statement made by the McCann’s when they said produce the body (or words similar)

    ReplyDelete
  54. In this case why has Tanner not been arrested and charged with Peverting the course of justice at the minimum

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anon 56

    There is some such word that Tanner has been accused of, but can't remember what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 57 Calumny

    cal·um·ny (klm-n)
    n. pl. cal·um·nies
    1. A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation.
    2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/calumny

    ReplyDelete
  57. A Trail of Thought Following the Reading of Comment 41
    (no animosity implied)

    The fact that there is "no evidence" of an abduction - if we discount one imagined sighting and the other (less so) further down the road it does not mean we can assume the McCann's are guilty...

    Think about the following plausible scenario...

    A substantial amount of alcohol had been (or was being) consumed by the group thus it is not far-fetching to hypothesize that one of them upon checking on the children left or forgot to close the door. Indeed there had been suggestions that the back door had been left opened... one way or the other, the child could have have wandered out into the night, etc. or by the same token some "piece of cake" could have walked in (S/he did not need to come in and/or go out through the window). This scenario would still fit the dogs findings IF the following had happened:

    The thief/psycho walks in, awakes Madeleine and she starts shouting: "Mammy! Pappy!". What does the denizen do? He grabs the child, places his/her hand over her mouth and the next thing he knows she is dead. It was an "accident" alright.

    Now the thief or psycho first tries to hide the child's behind the sofa, then decides for the cupboard - indeed s/he does not need to try to hide it in either locations as the scent the dogs detected (as the dog's trainer explains in the video) could have been brought there by a draft inside the apartment. It could have accumulated there...anyway...continuing...the criminal then decides to take her with him/her just in case they can trace him/her through the corpse.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  58. No evidence of a struggle?There need not be. It would have been brief. Place you hand over your mouth and stop breathing... That should give you an idea of how brief it could have been. So here we have a scenario that would match the description of both an abduction and a murder "by accident".

    The scenario of an "abduction by order" done by criminal professionals is also plausible along the same lines but with a different (planned rather than accidental) motive. Think about it. Of course, a death by accident caused and/or witnessed by the parent(s) also fits in but it is not the only one...

    Someone could have had access to the flat with or without a door having been left open. How? I hear you asking? I don't know how but it can be done (extra key/master key/locksmith's tool) which means an identical (accidental) course of events could have happened for other motives (abduction).

    Another detail: IF we accept the dogs detection of the cadaver odour as infallible (and that is pushing a dog's sniff a bit) then the child would have to have died there otherwise the dogs were picking up something else (unlikely) which would require other lines of investigation.

    The McCann's have stated that they had been in touch in the preceding days or weeks with cadavers in the exercise of their profession. It does not necessarily mean they are telling the truth but as an investigator and/or prosecutor you would need to confirm or deny their statements as true and/or false and/or investigate how far back in time a dog could detect an odour. But... I hear you asking... how would one explain the dogs reaction concerning the car?

    Same theory - as doctors they had been in touch with cadavers and the fluids could have been identical with the twins - as indeed the DNA evidence suggests unless detective dogs are more reliable than DNA analysis. Any studies on this? Again place your self in the place of the prosecution and/or defence and argue accordingly. To my knowledge (limited) there are no studies that reveal the full extent of a police dogs capabilities. How soon after an event and how long after the same can they pick up on a cadaver scent? BUT any defence lawyer worth his/her salt would throw this sort of argument at a judge/jury and as a prosecutor you would have to find your way around it. You try now.

    Also the car was hired much later... OK. "They had hidden their own daughters body for a while". How does one prove that? I don't mean rationalizing. I mean prove.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Overall the evidence is not conclusive. Portuguese experts know that. The British Foreign & Commonwealth know that and Dr. Amaral himself admits it that in that infamous interview with Miguel Sousa Tavares or as Dr. Amaral puts it: "an investigation has a beginning, a middle and a conclusion". He was removed from the case so he can only write a theory based on the facts of the investigation and the picture drawn up to the moment he was forced to leave the investigation - possibly not so much as a result of his lack of expertize but of "bad press". If the evidence was conclusive I am inclined to believe the McCann's would have been arrested. It does not mean the McCann's are innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt (as their PR machine and legal team wants public opinion to believe). It means they got out on the benefit of a doubt and the doubt is that they indeed may be innocent. Think about it.

    The DNA was not from Madeleine's or rather it could have been from the twins... the blood splatters (on the washed wall) were not either (too diluted) so it all rests on the circumstantial evidence of the dogs scent of a cadre, one single witness who seemed sure the man he saw was the father (because of the way he carried the child? One rather imaginative sight (Tanner's imaginative witnessing), the lack of precision in the timings of the check-ins? I mean if you had had a few drinks and were not expecting something truly dramatic to happen you would not go around with a stop-watch timing your visits and jotting them down. The times are approximate and were possibly imagined or if you prefer "doctored", in order to show them as "good, professional responsible parents". This does not make them guilty or perhaps in a sense it does but flipping a coin is hardly a way to settle for certainty.

    I am not against the theory of the McCann's being guilty in the way Dr. Amaral opinionates. What I am saying is that one can think of other possibilities no matter how far-fetching they may seem to some. Of course you have the right to hold the opinion that conjecture, theory and probability are superfluous and that "gut feelings" are best but Justice is not best served by each one's hunches.

    So what do we do now?

    Hang the McCann's without the benefit of a doubt? Of course not. Let Dr. Amaral have the right to his expert opinion against the McCann's right to a "good name"? But of course! Dr. Amaral must NOT be used as a scapegoat for the McCann's retrospective guilt of abandoning Madeleine to her fate - which is the one thing we know for sure.

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  60. Joana at 58

    Thanks for that information.

    The other Tapas friends who gave false witness to Murat being 'definitely' there should also be in line to be charged with that, because they certainly ganged up against him, and then it turned out not to have been true.

    It is doubtful they ever apologised after putting him through hell.

    Those people who knew Murat say he wasn't there, so it sounds a bit fishy that it was only the pals of the McCanns who said he was.

    Poor Murat, he would have been the perfect Patsy.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Experiments have been carried out and the best dogs need at least one hour and twenty five minutes to alert to cadaver scent from a dead body.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Madeleine must have been well dead at the time Gerry McCanns said he checked on her and saw her at just gone nine o cloce, alive and asleep.

    No wonder the investigators don't believe him.

    There is also the forensice evidence found in the hire car which the dogs alerted to, which Dr Amaral says shows the body was at some time kept in a frozen state.

    Since it is so hard for McCann to discredit the 'ludicrous' best in world, never been wrong before, dogs, he has tried to say that forensic evidence was planted by the investigators, both UK and Portugal. No doubt their supporters will believe him.

    ReplyDelete
  63. ac anon@59,60,61,
    I have to disagree with your trails of thoughts and scenarios
    Tanners sighting wasnt "imagined" it was completely made up with Murat being set up as a patsy.
    The Smiths sighting wasnt "imagined"it was real and verified.
    Your so called "plausable" scenarios are implausable in this case from what we know of it.
    In your scenario the thief/psycho "puts his hand over Madeleines mouth and next thing shes dead"???.
    I notice you dont take into account the blood splatter etc found on the wall and area behind the sofa in this particular scenario?
    Then generally speaking you expect us to consider that thief/pyscho would after stumbling on a piece of cake situation(as you put it)he kills Madeleine,throws her behind the sofa,hides,then forensicly cleans the apartment and the areas behind the sofa,removes her body from the apartment and flees carrying her leaving not a single trace or indeed not a sinner seeing him!!??
    And where does all the time come from needed to do all these amazing things?
    Give us a Break for F.sake and stop trying (a poor attempt)to insult our inteligence.
    Your name is not mc intyre by any chance?
    I havnt got the time to go through your ridicules scenarios in reply,but I agree that its blatantly obvious to everybody that there isnt any concrete evidence YET to Charge the mccanns with anything and thats only because of the British cover up with the help of corrupt Portugeese politicians.
    But in the eyes of the Global public (and their numbers are swelling day after day)The mccanns are Guilty of their Daughters demise and any reputation or peace of mind that they thought they had is gone for ever including when the twins grow old enough to see for themselves what really happened to their sister Madeleine.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  64. ac anon@59,60 and 61

    Just another couple of points I wish to make on some of your scenarios.
    Madeleine definately didnt wander off! Ask Kate she knows for a fact Madeleine didnt wander off because kate says she was there, "she found her GONE!"
    No one has tried to hang the mccanns without the benefit of the doubt,but they got ample benifit of the doubt time at the begining of this case from everybody that heard of the case and were given unprecidented help Worldwide until the cracks started to appear in all their statements etc.
    As mentioned they got benefit of the doubt in abundance but that benefit of the doubt ran out and Rightly so.

    A.Dubliner

    ReplyDelete
  65. :)] From ac Anon 65

    Easy brother! There is no need to draw your guns just because someone holds a different opinion. Be a gentleman.
    Let's deconstruct your assertions one by one:

    So it wasn't "imagined". It was "made up", which comes to the same thing. Tanner first states she saw a man walking away from the complex with a child the night of the disappearance and gives an id-kit description of the man. Later, she seems to be sure it was Murat even if her initial description of the man does not match Murat at all. I called it "imagining" but I should have called it (politely: a seemingly poorly differentiated and distorted perception. It is not necessarily a set-up as you ascertain.

    You have to give your mind some nuance, some plasticity. Reality is not either black or white. There are shades in-between.

    Tanner did not say it was Murat in the first place. She imagines that later. You can shelf that.

    The Smith's recognized the man from the TV News as being Gerry McCann. They reckoned his demeanour, his way of holding a child on arrival, etc. matches those of his memory. He had been drinking as well. He may be right. He may be wrong. To my knowledge only they saw "the man". No one else did so Amaral own's expert conclusion is (in his own words): " Is it evidence? Certainly not. It is information that has to be worked further.' You can shelf that too.

    Concerning my "plausible scenario" - a plausible scenario is what it is: "plausible". No more. No less and by the way the "piece of cake" I referred to is the intruder not the situation per se.

    Which blood did you refer to. The floor? OK. Here we go:

    Deposition of: JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP (in the Forensic report)

    quote/unquote: "286A/2007-CRL 11A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment

    The attempt to obtain a DNA result through LCN from all and any cellular material recovered from these combined swabs was unsuccessful, given that no profile was obtained, possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.

    286A/2007-CRL 12A & B Swabs collected from the wall of the apartment
    A mixed DNA result, apparently originating from at least two persons, was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the combined swabs. In my opinion, there is no evidence that supports the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result."

    Were the reports falsified? It is possible. How do I know? How do you know? You suspect. No one can be tried on the grounds of suspicion alone.

    ac

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  66. (Continuing)

    Concerning the cadaver odour picked by the dog. I refer you to the dog's own trainer (watch video). He makes it clear that the scent could have accumulated either place through a draft. It does not mean there had been a cadaver either behind the sofa or the cupboard. This implies that had anyone else died elsewhere inside the apartment, the odour could have accumulated in those areas.

    If you entered a trooper's dormitory and picked up an odour of dirty socks you may not go directly to the socks or where the socks were. It is the air.

    The crucial point to investigate here (my humble view) would have been to check whether the dog would pick up the odour inside the McCanns' English house or anyone's else that claims to have been in touch with a corpse three weeks ago, say. This would support and/or discredit the McCann's own defence on this.

    And no, my name is not McIntyre. Far from it. I like to think I am a free thinker. The McCann's may be guilty of accidentally and/or deliberately "terminating" their daughter but then they may be innocent. Think about it. One way to test this is to go against prevailing ideas. Imagine your self as a lawyer to the prosecution and then to the defence. See where it leads. Don't run the risk of sounding like a football fan! ;)) Are you a supporter of Procrustes F.C. by any change? Hmmm


    Evidence of a cover-up? I am not so sure, but evidence of image laundering yes/may be. I give you that.


    The reason to dislike those to hold to one extreme is that they cripple The Way. One thing is singled out to the neglect of a thousand others (an old Taoist saying).

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  67. :)] to 63

    Now! that is an interesting point. Could you tell us where that research has been published and/or where did you find it? That would seeem to eliminate the hypothesis of the child being killed and then removed by an intruder during the parents absence as I was speculating above - unless no one had checked on the children for such a period. The window of opportunity is too tight. It does not invalidate the possibility that some of the McCann's clothes were contaminated by their proximity with corpses in weeks preceeding the holidays (as they claim). Of course by the same token it enphasizes the hypothesis of them hiding the body which if of course an hypothesis for the sake of argument not an assertion. Too many variables. The thing to remember is that the dogs testimony alone could not be used. They are facilitators in an investigation. Not witnesses.

    Has anyone tested whether a trained dog would detect cadaver odour in someone's clothes had you been in the presence of a corpse a month ago say, for the sake of argument?

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  68. ac

    As to the cadaver scent accumulation needed from a dead body for the dogs to alert to, the information is on the internet as to the length of time needed of one hour and twenty five minutes, and better still if two to three hours for the dogs to pick up the scent.

    Eddie is the best, so maybe he can pick up at the least time needed for the dog of one hour and twenty five minutes.

    As for all these coincidences that would be needed for all that cadaver scent having accumulated around the McCanns, it is strange how the dogs were taken to many other places yet it was only those things connected to the McCanns that was alerted to. Not anybody else.

    By the way, if the cadaver scent was on the clothing of Kate McCann from weeks before and her said to have visited all those bodies (which has never been verified), then presumably it would have been found just about everywhere she had been sitting and had touched up against. So why wasn't it on all the clothing of the children? Surely she had been touching the children at some time? Why not on the chairs in the apartment she had been sitting, etc. Or did she never sit down? But no, it is BEHIND THE SETTEE. Might she have been lying there do you suppose? And it was in the wardrobe where photos taken to begin with, and show there was a large blue bag, which subsequently disappeared, and was then said by Gerry McCann never to have existed.

    An answer for everything have the McCanns even for a disappearing blue bag that is caught on camera.

    Like the dogs, we have to imagine it never existed!

    ReplyDelete
  69. ac

    Accepting what you say that there is no reliable evidence for a prosecution - surely there is - the McCanns' left their three children all under four alone. However many checks they made doesn't matter - at some point one of their children was abducted (as they continually attest)- they are responsible - they should be prosecuted if they can't produce Madeleine alive and well.

    Angelique

    ReplyDelete
  70. Angelique

    They can't be prosecuted for leaving the kids because Gerry says there is no evidence that Madeleine came to any harm.

    Like we have to ignore the findings of the dogs, and the disappearance of the blue bag, we also have to believe that IF Madeleine had been abducted that would amount to no harm to her whatsoever.

    Of course, there will be friends, family and fans of the McCanns who will be willing to believe that.

    As for the rest of us, no chance.

    ReplyDelete
  71. acanon@67
    We are all entitled to our opinions,just as I am entilted to my opinion of your recent posts without being accused of drawing guns.

    I am always the Gentleman when the need arises.

    Lets De-construct some of YOUR assertions.

    Imagined and made up doesnt come to the same thing.
    Tanner never imagined she saw an abductor,she made it up i.e. created ,lied,invented, to counteract the Smiths witnessing of Gerry.It was no figment of her imagination or as you sarcasticly say "a seemingly poorly differentiated and distorted perception,she later lied and attempted to incriminate Murat as the abductor.
    True No concrete evidence YET but hopefully the calumny case goes ahead against Tanner and co. and possibly faced with a bed in a portugeese prison They might deem it best to tell the truth and solve this case.
    The Smiths statements ,like the dogs markings are not concrete evidence just indications as to the likelyhood of what really occurred.
    You imply Mr Smith had enough drink taken to distort his recollection, How do you know!The Smiths dined in the resturaunt and left before 10pm, nothing there to suggest he had one too many or indeed a drink at all.
    As for giving my mind some nuance ,some plasticity,
    Let me assure I am as opened minded about most things in life and my thoughts on this case were for a number of months with the Mcanns and had nothing but sympathy with them,but then having had my eyes opened by numerous things surrounding this case (including Joanas Excellent blogspot)Logic,circumstancial evidence and the assertions of some british and Portugeese experts on the case,tells me something else.

    Amber Hagermans parents stated they never ate or slept for the four days the child was missing compare that to the mcanns.

    1.They never physically searched for Madeleine that night and went to sleep a few hours after her reported disappearence.

    2.They had no problem eating and drinking the next day .

    3.They went Jogging!

    4.They came out of the church on Madeleines birthday only 9 days after her disappearence with huge smiles and non stop laughter!

    The blood and the cadaver scent in at least one exact place was marked by both dogs,the chances of this happening is supposedly millions to one!
    No previous tennants in 5a had ever shed blood there.

    Amazing how no cadaver scent was detected (airbourne or otherwise)on any of the other doctors clothes incuding Gerrys after all they surely would have hugged each other in greetings,farewells and support situations?But no cadaver scent was transferred to any of their clothing,Kates must be the opposite to teflon.

    What does a football fan sound like?
    Princes william and Harry are both football fans,Alan Sugar is a football fan??
    No im not a supporter of procrutes f.c ,Im a supporter of Justice for Madeleine.

    You can put your judicial wig on whenever you want with your different scenarios but im just sticking to the circumstancial evidence and indications until SUCH Time this case is solved and I beleive some day probably out of the blue it will be.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Joanna, Lately I have to post my comments twice before the (your comment will be visible after approval) signal appears? When i click on the post your comment button a tiny red rectangle appears
    and only after I repost my comment for the second time does the comment posted indicator show?is this normal/

    ReplyDelete
  73. There is no evidence in the public domain for a prosecution (Yet) other than the tapas statements of neglect,if the police charged them with neglect I dont think they could charge them with a more serious offence like concealment or other offences down the line.
    The pj are hopefully biding their time, like in most cases with the hope of a break through at some stage,maybe Tanner and co pending calumny case will blow the case wide open.

    WE Live in Hope.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  74. :)] Message to 70

    I found this (see quote/unquote at the end)which seems to originate from a bona fide source. Might add some more comments later when I have the time. Right now one or two inferences.

    To judge from the research data contamination can occur pretty fast so... that much would offer support to the possibility that Dr. Kate McCann could be telling the truth (this needed to be checked. Probably was. Not sure if it is in the public files though.)

    The crucial point to bear in mind is that in these experiments the corpses were all from persons dead for at least three hours. I cannot find the source for your the 1,5 hours you quote. I am not doubting it though.

    My understanding is the peculiar scent dogs hone in (cadaverine and quantum, non-locality of mind stuff) is not produced immediately after medical death so even assuming it takes 1,5 hours for a top dog to nose on it we do not need to hold on, desperately, to the hypothesis that there had to be a corpse in the apartment in the first place just because the dogs detected it.

    We do we have to force the data into a "suspect" pattern.

    According to this information the odour could have come from contamination. No doubt the defence would argue this - particularly if they could come up with the evidence of the death beds Dr. Kate McCann attended prior to their holidays and which clothes was she wearing (witnesses, CCTV).

    Oh! Another detail. Cadaverine can be present in urine of people with a certain metabolic deficiency (lysine)! Check it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaverine

    Draw some inferences from this too.

    The point you raise concerning the other doctors is a valid one but it can be deconstructed. Not that I can think of a way, right now...

    The information I have is that dogs can pick up on cadaver odour long after contamination has occurred but have no specific scientific data on the time span involved.

    OK. Here is the quote/unquote:

    "Carpet squares were used as an odour transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).

    The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

    Reference:
    Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
    Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
    Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany." Source: http://dogsdontlie.com/main/

    8-} So, dear Watson... where do we go from here?

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  75. :)] Angelique.

    I agree. There is evidence for a prosecution on the grounds you suggest but I can anticipate the defence arguing that the tapas bar was within the boundaries of the holiday complex.

    Strictly speaking they were not outside its perimeter. In fact they could almost see the windows of their apartment.

    The evidence of sorts (contradictory) they present suggests they were "responsible" parents by doing turns in checking the children. All of which the jury would take into account. OK. You could cross examine the witnesses. So what? They had had a few glasses...the times were made up but you could not prove they did not leave the table.

    Finally add to that the fact that they are medical doctors and MD's are by definition "minor deities" within any ideological system. They are pretty high in the hierarchy you know - they do save lots of lives. You have to concede that.

    Vis a vis what must have been already a tragedy for the the twins to loose their elder sister there was no point in the Justice system adding more suffering to the McCann's fate. That is why, I think, the warm hearted Portuguese authorities let them get away with it.

    What would you do? Put them in prison to avenge Madeleine and then leave the other two children without parents? Find them guilty and then let them walk out on parole? Incarcerate? Stone them? What?

    True, Dr. Amaral should have been allowed to go ahead with his investigation no matter what. Now, we will probably never know. It is too late.

    Never say never, though...

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  76. Keep trying ac.

    Perhaps you'll get invited to Rothley to meet the 'lovely' Kate, that's if you haven't been there already.

    Maybe they will be able to give you yet more excuses to try. How about the 'planting of evidence' one?

    ReplyDelete
  77. ac anon @68

    "One thing is signalled out to the neglect of a thousand others"

    That saying doesnt doesnt apply in this case as there is not only One thing being signalled out here but scores of indications leading to the most likely scenario i.e Madeleine Died in 5a and her parents/tapas 7 concealed her body .

    You and I both know that your court room scenarios are irrelevant because obviously the portugeese dont have enough amunition (YET)to even attempt to charge the tapas 9 with anything that would stand up in court.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  78. :)] A. Dubliner, you are embarrassing James Joyce now...

    The translation by James Legge actually reads "singled" (if my memory helps). I re-quote: "The reason to dislike those to hold to one extreme is that they cripple the way. One thing is SINGLED out to the neglect of a thousand others".

    In a court of law you cannot say you have "scores of indications". You have to name and present them all one by one. If there is enough circumstantial evidence you may be getting somewhere. The problem here is that the circumstantial evidence (critically the laboratory samples)was not, or defined as not "conclusive" by the experts - something the jury would immediately pick on. To say that the report is a cover-up is not enough - unless you could prove it.

    Exactly. The PJ does not have enough "ammunition" (as you put it) to charge them and therefore if you charge them ex-cathedra you are exposing yourself to the McCann legal team's wrath. It is that simple: if you cannot prove someone is guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt you must at least withhold judgement and accept they may be innocent. I believe you can have an opinion. ANY opinion - particularly if like Dr. Amaral you happen to b an expert investigator.

    :)]78 above Thank you!I love you too! suggests I should meet Dr. Kate McCann and listen to her version of events. Trust me, I would not mind to meet her but I doubt she wants to talk to me about it the way I like which is: "no holds barred". Just like you would not. Mind you, I do not need to talk to her. I can delve into the nitty-gritty of the case and draw my own private "conclusions".

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  79. It would be interesting to know what 'evidence' Gerry McCann is meaning when he says that 'evidence' has been planted.

    How can that be Gerry, when according to you there is no evidence.

    It sounds like those dogs are something the McCanns can't shake off no matter how they try.

    Or, would you like to tell us more Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  80. ac

    The people who actually investigated the case are saying Madeleine is dead and she died in the holiday apartment.

    As to how she came to die, well, that is another matter.

    We are not in possession of all the evidence, and most of the File is closed to us and to the McCanns.

    It is sufficient to believe the investigators do not say Madeleine is dead without a very good reason, even though they may not be in a position yet to prove how she died.

    It is also not libel to repeat what the investigators believe and have stated in Court and in the released part of the File, much as the McCanns would like to silence people from saying it. The best the McCanns can do at present is to try and discredit the investigators, both Portuguese and UK, to dismiss the best sniffer dogs in the world as 'ludicrous', and to come up with dafter than ever so called 'sightings' of Madeleine.

    Not forgetting their attempt to make people believe evidence has been planted against them.

    Now that really does sound desparate. It actually sounds like a last resort.

    ReplyDelete
  81. ac @ 80

    It would be very difficult no make that impossible for me to embarress James Joyce seeing that he passed away over 61 years ago(Jan 1941)but I get the gist of your remark but your inteligent enough to know that it was one of my spelling mistakes (I should have gone to spec savers)!

    you can rant all you like with your obvious knowledge of the legal system and coutroom dramas (in the uk )but were not at the stage of court YET and wont be until somebody breaks under pressure and gives the true account of what happened that evening .

    Its seems to have been accepted behind the scenes by team mccann and others that Tanner falsely incriminated Murat and if shes found guilty of calumny (providing theres no political interference)she may well be advised to seek a deal and come clean in order to avoid a possible prison sentence.

    Stranger things have and do happen

    It will be very interesting to see how the mccanns legal team deal with that.

    Whats your legal opinion on this scenario ac?

    A.Dubliner

    ReplyDelete