"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case

[Sue]

Well you probably wouldn't report someone missing if there was still a body about :-S

And actually it's not true to say that their every move was watched afterwards, because they seemed to be constantly going jogging.

Chick - you say that people posting on this thread should hang their heads in shame. I think it is the parents who should be hanging their heads in shame.

Whatever happened to Madeleine, I believe that the following is not in dispute:

The parents left her alone with her younger siblings even after they had been told on a previous night that she had been crying for her father for (I think) over an hour.

They did not cooperate with the police investigation. Mrs McCann refused to answer 48 questions put to her by police. The only one she answered was along the lines of "Do you realise that by not answering these questions you are hindering the search for your daughter?", to which she answered "Yes".

They went against police advise and publicised Madeleine's distinctive eye defect even when told that this would put her in danger because any abductor, on realising Madeleine would be immediately recognisable, would kill her.

Their holiday companion/s attempted to pin Madeleine's disappearance on Robert Murat, a man living near the apartment, hence putting him through hell (I believe that he is currently suing them for their false claims).

They refused to return for a reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared, which could have clarified the various inconsistencies in their statements. As a result, the police still do not have a clear idea of the apparent sequence of events.

They dissed the police who were trying to find out what had happened to their daughter.

They dissed the findings of two separate top British sniffer dogs (yes the DNA etc was too degraded for a conclusive match to be made, but the fact is that both dogs alerted in several places in an apartment from which a child had disappeared and in which nobody else had died, to Madeleine's cuddly toy, and to items of Mrs McCann's clothing)

You can actually see a video of the dogs alerting - I will try to find the link to it.

When the case was shelved, the McCanns could have requested that it be reopened. There was a window of opportunity in which legally they were able to do that. They didn't.

You can read much of the police files online, such as witness statements, though I presume some evidence will have been withheld when the police published the rest. I will try to find the link.

And for those who think I should not have started this thread - what is wrong with a society which criticises someone bringing to people's attention facts to counteract the spin of a paid "spokesman" (Clarence Mitchell), rather than criticising the parents who whatever way you look at it failed their little children?

Here's one link to a site which has a lot of information:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/

Here's a link to videos of the dogs alerting:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html

[mockney piers]

Nothing better to focus your energies on....seriously?!?!?!

Why do you care? Is there a personal element? They're family, you were left alone for half an hour as a baby and got scared?

Just let it go.

We can do things about dysentery and malaria; we can try and stop our government killing innocent children in Afghanistan every week. In the scheme of things I'm not sure why we even give this tale a second glance.

Either something tragic happened and they'll feel shit forever, or something tragic happened and they'll feel shit forever. Your self satisfied gloating helps not one single person on this planet.

[sophiesofa]

> rather than criticising the

> parents who whatever way you look at it failed

> their little children?

This for me sums up why I feel uncomfortable with this thread. Whatever happened they don't need criticising, they've suffered enough.

[DJKillaQueen]

All of which proves NOTHING.

The McCanns reported Madeleine as missing as soon as they realised she was missing for sure. Nothing unusual in that.

They were under the Police and media spotlight within days if not hours of the reported disappearance. Again nothing unusual in that.

The chidren were checked on regularly by the parents in turn and not left for hours. Those parents genuinely believed their children were safe. The intent is more important than you want to admit (having already decided they killed their own child and covered it up).

Not answering questions that can't be answered or someone is unable to answer does not equate to non co-operation. Assumption by you based on biased blogs and news reports that you have read, as the actual police interviews are not available for public inspection in full, nor will be unless there is a prosecution and court case.

Also I repeat that when people are bereaved or in shock (even if it is laced with guilt) they sometimes do NOT act normally.

I could go on. In reference to the dogs...there is NO conclusive DNA evidence (not even worth mentioning anymore). And if they DID detect the death of someone in the apartment there is NO evidence to link the McCanns to that death (or indeed any conclusive evidence that it was Madeleine's death). It is perfectly possible that a third party WAS involved.

That is the problem with your argument. For everything you list...all of which is just speculation and none of which PROVES anything, there is an equally plausible and equally speculative alternate argument.

On the leaving children unspuervised....millions of parents do that every day. They do it to answer the door, or to take a nap......even. Some even leave their children altogether for others to raise and look after. You have children Sue (you posted you have a grand-child) - did you have your children before your eyes for every day of their first say 13 years of life?

If the McCanns and their friends thought for one moment that leaving their children sleeping in apartments they could clearly see from their dinner table for a couple of hours (whilst taking turns to check on them regularly) would have led to this they would never have done it. They have paid the ultimate price and I think it's very cold hearted of you Sue to keep demonising them for that mistake.

[Sue]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

. Your self satisfied

> gloating helps not one single person on this

> planet.

xxxxxxx

Can you - seriously - point to anywhere where I've been "gloating"? Or "Self-satisfied"?

I'm interested in the case. Full stop.

ETA: DJKQ, instead of stating things as fact, please could you at least check them out first. There are plenty of resources on the internet, in fact I have given some links.

And please remove your reference to my "saying that they killed their child", when if you read my posts properly you will find I have said nothing of the sort. I don't believe for a minute that they killed their child.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All of which proves NOTHING.

>

> The McCanns reported Madeleine as missing as soon

> as they realised she was missing for sure.

How do you know that?

> They were under the Police and media spotlight

> within days if not hours of the reported

> disappearance. Again nothing unusual in that.

They were under the media spotlight because they courted the press right from the start.

>

> The chidren were checked on regularly by the

> parents in turn and not left for hours.

How do you know that? As they wouldn't return for a reconstruction, there is no way of knowing. And in any case, get your facts right, even the parents didn't claim they were checking them in turn.

Those

> parents genuinely believed their children were

> safe. The intent is more important than you want

> to admit

How do you know what they believed or what their intent was?

(having already decided they killed their

> own child and covered it up).

I have never said that, please read my posts and remove this statement.

>

> Not answering questions that can't be answered or

> someone is unable to answer does not equate to non

> co-operation.

The list of questions asked is in the public domain, why not look them up. They were perfectly straightforward questions.

Assumption by you based on biased

> blogs and news reports that you have read,

No, I have made no assumptions, the police files are in the public domain. One of the things this case has opened my eyes to is the total untrustworthiness of articles and comment in the press.

as the

> actual police interviews are not available for

> public inspection in full, nor will be unless

> there is a prosecution and court case.

You are wrong. They are all available on the internet. The Portuguese system is different. Please get your facts right.

>

> Also I repeat that when people are bereaved or in

> shock (even if it is laced with guilt) they

> sometimes do NOT act normally.

>

> I could go on. In reference to the dogs...there is

> NO conclusive DNA evidence (not even worth

> mentioning anymore).

Have you looked at the videos? Do you think both dogs were wrong? If there had been conclusive DNA evidence there would probably have been arrests by now.

And if they DID detect the

> death of someone in the apartment there is NO

> evidence to link the McCanns to that death (or

> indeed any conclusive evidence that it was

> Madeleine's death). It is perfectly possible that

> a third party WAS involved.

I ask you again, please look at the facts.

>

> That is the problem with your argument. For

> everything you list...all of which is just

> speculation

It is not speculation, please read my posts properly

and none of which PROVES anything,

No, and that is why there have been no arrests

> there is an equally plausible and equally

> speculative alternate argument.

Which is what, and how is it equally plausible?

>

> On the leaving children unspuervised....millions

> of parents do that every day. They do it to answer

> the door, or to take a nap......even.

Most people don't leave their children alone night after night to go out drinking. And most people don't "take a nap" when they are supposed to be looking after three children under four. Do you have any experience of children this age, DJKQ?.

Some even

> leave their children altogether for others to

> raise and look after. You have children Sue (you

> posted you have a grand-child) - did you have your

> children before your eyes for every day of their

> first say 13 years of life?

I never left a child alone and would never ever do so.

>

> If the McCanns and their friends thought for one

> moment that leaving their children sleeping in

> apartments they could clearly see from their

> dinner table

They could not see inside the apartment where a child could be vomiting, choking or falling. And in any case, the apartments could not be "clearly seen" from their dinner table.

for a couple of hours (whilst taking

> turns to check on them regularly)

It is you who is making assumptions, not me. How do you know they were checked on regularly? They have given inconsistent accounts to the police and refused to return for a reconstruction which would clarify these.

would have led

> to this they would never have done it.

How do you know what the McCanns have done or might have done?

They have

> paid the ultimate price and I think it's very cold

> hearted of you Sue to keep demonising them for

> that mistake.

I'm not demonising them. I'm interested in finding out what happened to a little girl. Both my brothers work in child protection - why shouldn't I be interested in trying to find out the truth?

[DJKillaQueen]

How do you know that?

It's in the timeline of the doc (which I have watched) you reference in the title of this thread (jesus)......if you can't even get that right then I suggest you go back and revisit your own sources of reference.

I've read the sites you've linked to....and I have countered the points of your argument eloquently. You don't seem to want to acknowledge any theory beyond the ones you are peddling. I will conceed that you are arguing that abduction didn't happen (rather than murder/ manslaughter) but you are not presenting any theory so concrete that abduction can be dismissed.

You have repeatedly criticised the McCanns for every aspect of their efforts to find their child. Can you not understand why a parent would want to continue to believe their child is alive and do what they can to find them? Or is it the case that you think they know their child is dead and so are somehow conning us all to cover that up (which is what you must believe from some of your criticism and cycnicism on their continued belief in abduction).

You started this thread by showing support and credance to the argument presented by the Police Inspector (who incidently was fired) you refer to in your opening post...that's why you are sourcing the links and documentary and account's that you are......

I'm not removing any statements.

I do think you are cold-hearted in your continued lack of sympathy at what the McCanns must have gone through in losing their child (you are more fixated in criticising and/or implicating them). Yes I do have LOTS of experience of children thank you very much. All parents make mistakes from time to time......luckily most of the time no harm is done. Or are you asking us to believe that you were the perfect mother?...somehow I think not.

The theory you present is SPECULATIVE...there is NO hard evidence. A couple of dogs sniffing something that can't be seen or measured by humans...is NOT hard evidence. It needs hard DNA to have any worth and it has been explained to you why the DNA is useless and can prove nothing. I think it's a mystery that will never be solved until a body is found (either living or deceased) and there really is no point in pursuing a case beyond that.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Never have two people on opposing sides of an argument spent so much energy and time, pounding out words to NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER

it doesn't matter what anyone thinks they know. They are only consumers of released information. The debates are circular and done to death. If you care either way you have taken your side.. No one is convincing anyone of anything

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How do you know that?

>

> It's in the timeline of the doc (which I have

> watched) you reference in the title of this thread

> (jesus)......if you can't even get that right then

> I suggest you go back and revisit your own sources

> of reference.

Could you be a bit clearer please, I don't understand what you mean, the title of my thread is the title of Sr Amaral's book.

>

> I've read the sites you've linked to...

You can't possibly have read the whole of the McCann Files, as I only posted the link tonight!

.and I have

> countered the points of your argument eloquently.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then, as I don't think you have.

> You don't seem to want to acknowledge any theory

> beyond the ones you are peddling.

You haven't advanced one, have you?

I will conceed

> that you are arguing that abduction didn't happen

> (rather than murder/ manslaughter) but you are not

> presenting any theory so concrete that abduction

> can be dismissed.

If you have as you say read the websites I have linked to, though I can't see how you can possibly have read the whole of the McCann Files in a few hours, which include police interviews and a great deal else, you would be well aware that there is no evidence for an abduction.

>

> You have repeatedly criticised the McCanns for

> every aspect of their efforts to find their child.

What efforts? Not cooperating with the police? Not asking for the case to be reopened when they could have done? Employing private investigators with no track record of finding missing children? Employing private investigators one of whom is now under investigation himself? Employing a team of lawyers which includes those who represented General Pinochet when he was trying to avoid extradition? Employing a "spokesman" to spin their story?

> Can you not understand why a parent would want to

> continue to believe their child is alive and do

> what they can to find them? Or is it the case that

> you think they know their child is dead and so are

> somehow conning us all to cover that up (which is

> what you must believe from some of your criticism

> and cycnicism on their continued belief in

> abduction).

>

> You started this thread by showing support and

> credance to the argument presented by the Police

> Inspector (who incidently was fired) you refer to

> in your opening post...that's why you are sourcing

> the links and documentary and account's that you

> are......

I have linked to the McCann Files, why don't you read them, you clearly haven't. And why don't you look at the reason why Sr Amaral was removed from the investigation?

>

> I'm not removing any statements.

You have stated that I said the parents killed their child. That is not true. If you won't remove your statement I will ask admin to remove it.

>

> I do think you are cold-hearted in your continued

> lack of sympathy at what the McCanns must have

> gone through in losing their child (you are more

> fixated in criticising and/or implicating them).

> Yes I do have LOTS of experience of children thank

> you very much.

Well I hope that you didn't take too frequent "naps" as you put it when looking after small children, or you might have found yourself in the same position as the McCanns.

All parents make mistakes from time

> to time......luckily most of the time no harm is

> done. Or are you asking us to believe that you

> were the perfect mother?...somehow I think not.

There are mistakes, and then there is sheer stupidity. Nobody is a perfect mother. However, my mothering skills are not in question here, I think? Most of us, even if we had been so crap as to leave our children alone on previous nights, on being told that our child had cried for an hour (I think) whilst left alone in the dark in a strange room in a foreign country, would not be so cold-hearted as to then leave them alone again.

I believe that Mrs Fenn's statement regarding Madeleine's crying is available to read in the McCann files, though I stand to be corrected.

>

> The theory you present is SPECULATIVE...there is

> NO hard evidence.

Of course a theory is speculative, that's what a theory is :))

A couple of dogs sniffing

> something that can't be seen or measured by

> humans...is NOT hard evidence. It needs hard DNA

> to have any worth

Yes, that is why I have gone out of my way to stress that the evidence is indicative and not conclusive, but it seems that I am banging my head against a brick wall here.

and it has been explained to you

> why the DNA is useless and can prove nothing.

It hasn't proved anything at the moment, no, because the samples were degraded and insufficient markers were found to demonstrate conclusively that it was Madeleine's. It was not demonstrated that it was NOT Madeleine's, however.

I

> think it's a mystery that will never be solved

> until a body is found (either living or deceased)

> and there really is no point in pursuing a case

> beyond that.

Well there have been cases which have been solved without a body, and sometimes cases are solved many years later. We shall just have to wait and see, shan't we.

[DJKillaQueen]

Never have two people on opposing sides of an argument spent so much energy and time, pounding out words to NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER

I can think of many threads that out do this one in that respect Sean and neither Sue nor I have anything to do with them lol ;-)

But in respect to this thread I totally agree the debates are circular, done to death and pointless...was kind of my point really (I think)....

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> But in respect to this thread I totally agree the

> debates are circular, done to death and

> pointless...was kind of my point really (I

> think)....

xxxxxxx

Why on earth are you continuing the debate then, if that's your opinion?

[DJKillaQueen]

Why on earth are you continuing the debate then, if that's your opinion?

Out of decency towards the McCanns.

Sr Amaral also made a documentary based on his book......he summises the timeline for events in that documentary.

Anyway...my final words are NO HARD EVIDENCE and not worth talking about until there is......oh and to add...'innocent until proven (beyond reasonable doubt) guilty'.

And as always my sympathy remains with the McCanns for their lost child.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> And as always my sympathy remains with the McCanns

> for their lost child.

xxxxxxx

As always, my sympathy remains with the child who was so dismally failed by her parents.

[DJKillaQueen]

The only person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance is the person that took her or knows what happened to her.

Thankfully it's a rare thing.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Anyway...my final words are

xxxxxxx

You have to have the last word, don't you?

If you haven't got anything more to contribute to the discussion, why bother? Why say these are your final words and then go on to say more?

ETA: Oh, I see you've now removed your last post.

[DJKillaQueen]

Sigh......the only person bothered about a last word is you (JC)....we don't agree...that's all there is to it...give it up.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The only person responsible for Madeleine's

> disappearance is the person that took her or knows

> what happened to her.

>

> Thankfully it's a rare thing.

xxxxxxxx

Jesus Christ. You can't give up, can you? Yet more "final words"?

You've edited the post of 11.19 that previously just said "Whatever ..." to say something else completely :))

So - let's be clear about this - you don't think that the McCanns were in any way responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine, despite leaving her alone at night, night after night?

Words fail me. Really.

[Sue]

I'm going to bed now.

DJKQ, please don't post again unless you have something constructive to add, it's a waste of both of our times. Thanks.

[mockney piers]

My mate died because he didn't wear a seatbelt. I think you should start a thread about how selfish that was, make sure that if his parents ever google his name they'll find you pontificating about personal responsibility.

I've another friend who was killed by a car as he decided to walk a short cut down a country lane, pretty stupid looking back, but obviously something needs to be done as people sometimes don't think the worst will happen. His brother was going to give him a lift but was talking to someone; I have his telephone number if you want it; just phone him and tell him what a cunt he was to let his brother walk down that dark road and die, I bet you he'll appreciate it, or maybe he was the driver and is trying to cover it up.....oh shit, he actually wanted him dead.

Oh hang on, it never made the press, never mind, that lady di....Arab heir...etc...ad nauseum....

[silverfox]

That's not fair mockney.

In defence of Sue there are still big questions hanging over this case and given it's high profile there will continue to be speculation.

[DJKillaQueen]

please don't post again unless you have something constructive to add

I'll post whenever I want and whatever I want (within the forum rules), thanks.

The McCanns were not responsible for the disappearnace of their child no. The perpetrator of that crime is responsible for that. And I think the law is in agreement with me on that.

Mockney makes a very good point. How about this?

A woman walks down a poorly lit street at night and is raped. Did she bring it on herself?

The parents of Sarah Payne let her out to play in a corn field near her home out of sight and she was murdered. Did they dismally fail her too?

Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

Parents do not INTENTIONALLY put their children at risk from murderers, abductors and criminals. The McCanns are no different from most parents in this respect.

I really can't understand Sue why you can't seperate leaving their children in what they thought was the safety of the apartment they could see from their dinner table, from the seperate criminal act that is responsible for the unexplained disappearance of their child. In fact...words fail me, really!!!!

[silverfox]

Mockney and djkq both miss the point. The examples you give have known endings. There's closure.

The McCann case is far from closed and only one of a number of possible causes are true. Speculation will remain. At the moment only little Madeline is innocent.

[DJKillaQueen]

With due respect, the point is as follows. Sue is arguing that the McCanns are responsible for their child's disappearance by leaving them in the apartment alone. And they can not be forgiven for that. My view is that leaving the children alone...and the disappearance of a child, are two seperate acts (with different people being repsonsible).

As for....Speculation will remain. At the moment only little Madeline is innocent......all are innocent until evidence shows otherwise. That is a basic fundamental of the law (and a viewpoint that ignores that is a dangerous one). Speculation has a habit of forming public opinion whereby innocent people are presumed guilty by presumption, even though no charges have ever been made, or prosecution taken place (that is why the McCanns have won libel cases). The only place that can decide innocence or guilt is a court.

[silverfox]

I won't presume to say what Sue is arguing, she's more than capable of arguing her own corner.

With regard to your Quasi legal point, your wording let's you down. A person is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. The fact is unless Madeline wandered off and met some tragic end with no involvement from anyone else then somebody was involved in her disappearance and is guilty, we just don't know who yet. They are factually guilty even if they haven't been apprehended and brought before a court and convicted. They are not legally guilty though until this happens and the burden of proof that applies in the jurisdiction is satisfied.

[Huguenot]

We do presume the McCann's innocence don't we?

Clearly there's not enough evidence to resolve it, so anyone asserting their innocence is just as wrong as anyone assserting their guilt.

Sue smells a rat. I don't know why, but I do too. The very first time I saw them on telly I didn't feel comfortable with it. Apparently the British and Portuguese police smell a rat too.

That doesn't mean that they're guilty of anything. From the girl's point of view, this is a crashing tragedy whatever happened.

But the McCanns courted the press, and in doing so they take the rough with the smooth. That mean's that Sue is entitled to comment upon this issue in a way that she wouldn't if it was a private family tragedy in ED.

Mockers, I'm not sure mate. If I died a horrible death at the hands of a crafty murderer and my mates had given up because it was just too difficult, I'd be reliant upon strangers who wanted to avenge a sense of injustice.

Sue, I don't know if you're right or not, but I celebrate your sense of indignation about a case that's unresolved.