"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case

[ImpetuousVrouw]

I agree about how one sided the blogs are, but if you can sift through that and just concentrate on the relevant evidence, it does make an abduction look less likely than an accidental death in the apartment.

[DJKillaQueen]

The cadaver point is the only curious one for me. But in itself it's not enough to prove anything because it's impossible to know who's cadaver it is or how long it's been there. The other point of interest is the Irish couple who saw a man heading towards the beach with a child held in his arms.

The former could support a theory of death, the latter a theory of abduction. But neither are enough to be sure of anything.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But Sue has presented NO evidence Impetuous...just

> a theory presented by a Portuguese Police

> inspector who worked on the case - who let's not

> forget was fired as a result.

He was not "fired as a result", he was taken off the case because - and this is from memory - he made comments about British involvement in the case to the press, and his superiors didn't like it.

His replacement came to exactly the same conclusion as Sr Amaral. You can read the conclusions which the police investigation came to, which were published when the case was shelved. If you can't be bothered to find them, but would rather just continue firing off inaccuracies on here, then I'll find them and post them here.

As a theory it's

> plausible, just like many other theories,

> including abduction but there is no hard evidence

> to back up any of those theories and so to

> conclude anything from it is just assumption.

> No-one knows what really happened that evening and

> probably won't until a body is found, if ever.

Why do you have to keep on making the same point over and over again? And why do I have to keep on reiterating that yes it's a theory and has to be a theory because as you say there is no conclusive proof, and abduction might be a theory as well, as might being carried away by aliens, but there's no evidence for either of those whereas there is indicative evidence for accidental death and a cover-up.

>

> It's perfectly normal for cases to be closed when

> they have nowhere further to go and then be

> re-opened if new evidence comes to light. That is

> where this case is at.

Yes, the case has been shelved for lack of sufficient evidence at the moment. What's your point?

> Thank goodness we do have courts to decide on

> these things and the days of mob lynching are

> over.

Again, what's your point? Who's suggesting a mob lynching? Why do you keep on posting on here, saying the same old stuff over and over again, when you made what you said were your final words on the matter last night? It's just getting really boring, tbh.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> You are right about the bias of those sites

> Taper...none of them take an objective look. Sr

> Almara is the closest to objective because he is

> trying to piece together a theory that might make

> sense from some of the pieces......but it's all

> circumstantial.

There are plenty of other sites which slag off Sr Amaral and treat the parents as saints. Anywhere where there is discussion of the case, as here, is going to divide opinion.

That is why I posted last night a link to the McCann Files, which as well as opinion also have a great deal of the actual undisputed factual evidence available, such as witness statements.

> I can totally understand why Mrs McCann would want

> to beleive in abduction.

You have, again, missed the point. The point is that she immediately claimed that there had been an abduction, rather than coming to the more likely conclusion that her daughter had woken up and wandered out of an apartment which according to Mrs McCann's own account had been left unlocked.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

The other point of

> interest is the Irish couple who saw a man heading

> towards the beach with a child held in his arms.

>

xxxxxxxxx

Ah yes, the Smith (I think his name was Smith) sighting. I've carefully avoided mentioning the Smith sighting.

The McCanns have been strangely quiet about the Smith sighting, which hasn't been publicised amongst all these other "sightings" of Madeleine all over the world which are so beloved of the gutter press to keep their circulation up.

What you fail to mention, DJKQ, is that when Mr Smith saw video footage on the news of Mr McCann carrying one of his younger children off the plane when the McCanns came back to England, he apparently realised that the man he had seen carrying a child (whom he had assumed was sleeping) on the night Madeleine disappeared was probably Mr McCann himself.

[Bellenden Belle]

Sue Wrote:

>

> Ah yes, the Smith (I think his name was Smith)

> sighting. I've carefully avoided mentioning the

> Smith sighting.

There is a very peculiar tone to your writing here Sue. As if you have suddenly stepped into a production of "An Inspector Calls". As if you are waiting for people to make points, only for you to bat them down with your superior knowledge before finally pulling the trump card out of your pocket with a magician's flourish.

In short - I think you might need to take a step back. In your post to Mockney you comment "I have already said that I have an interest in this case, and have had since it was first publicised. Do you not have interests in things? Is that somehow different, in your superior case?"

I think there is a difference between taking an interest in subjects or current affairs and becoming unhealthily preoccupied with individual crime cases. My personal opinion is that the second can slide very easily into voyeurism and judgemental behaviour, justified by the argument that you have examined the facts and evidence.

What exactly do you hope to gain by this thread Sue? Why are you putting so much time and energy into this? I'm actually more curious about your response than the actual Mccann case.

[Dorothy]

It does seem exceptionally ghoulish to take such an interest in the probable death of a little girl.

[Emerson Crane]

This thread has stirred the emotions hasn't it. As a parent, my only thought, which has been mentioned here on many occasions, is why they left the little one on her own. We never left our children on their own until they were 15 or 16. I'm not trying to take the moral high ground here, really, but because we never did it I can't understand why others would. Nor do I profess to have a huge knowledge of this case. I can only hope that the little one is alive and well.

[huncamunca]

I could tell what is is now privately considered the generally accepted story behind this - gleaned from someone who works closely with very senior British coppery on intelligence matters, but Wont, as it would send some posters into a frothing, excitable frenzy.

This thread is rather disturbing - not cos of the case itself I may add.

ho hum.

[Sue]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

> What exactly do you hope to gain by this thread

> Sue? Why are you putting so much time and energy

> into this? I'm actually more curious about your

> response than the actual Mccann case.

xxxxxxxxxx

I have spent three years being very frustrated at the lack of objective reporting of this case in this country, not just in the tabloids but in the broadsheets as well.

Whether that is due to the laziness of journalists in regurgitating press releases from the McCann's "spokesman", due to fear of litigation even for printing actual objective facts about the case, or some other reason, I don't know.

In particular, I have been outraged at the way the Portuguese, the Portuguese police, and Sr Amaral in particular, have been slagged off and called names - bumbling, sardine munchers etc - as if they were some sort of Keystone Cops (they were probably called that as well, somewhere).

The publication of the wikileak makes clear that there was British police involvement. That was not a secret before, but it was not exactly trumpeted by the press, who preferred to whip up the public's xenophobia by suggesting an incompetent foreign police force was not properly investigating a little girl's disappearance.

It was the wikileak which initially led me to post on here, combined with Sr Amaral winning his appeal which enabled him to continue publishing his book in Portugal.

I wanted to put some information out to counter what people have been fed by the press about the case. I'm not talking about the obviously fictional stories, I'm talking about a one-sided view which has mostly concentrated on "abduction" (though it is very noticeable that the word "disappearance" is being more widely used now).

I'm not sure that will satisfy the posters on here who seem to think I'm on some sort of witch hunt, but at the end of the day I want to see the truth emerge about what happened to a little girl who has disappeared.

If that truth is that she was hauled out of an apartment window by a stranger, then so be it.

[katie1997]

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

> What exactly do you hope to gain by this thread

> Sue? Why are you putting so much time and energy

> into this? I'm actually more curious about your

> response than the actual Mccann case.

Bellenden Belle - to be fair, I'd say Sue doesn't appear to be the only person on here who is putting 'so much time and energy into this thread' which has now run to 4 pages!

I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons why people are motivated to post what they do on the EDF (and the subject matter of this thread is not something I personally want to discuss on here). If anyone feels this thread is inappropriate then they could report it?

[Sue]

huncamunca Wrote:

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

> I could tell what is is now privately considered

> the generally accepted story behind this -

> gleaned from someone who works closely with very

> senior British coppery on intelligence matters,

> but Wont, as it would send some posters into a

> frothing, excitable frenzy.

>

xxxxxx

Oh for God's sake :))

[DJKillaQueen]

Bellenden Belle has put is succinctly. The replies are obsessive and now patronising too.

Sue, I keep replying with the same counter argument...because the theory you keep listing details of is flawed...something you seem unable to accept or comprehend (although you have conceeded that there is no DNA substantial enough to suggest anything (finally).

And witnesses often think they recoginise things after the fact when it's actually their memory wanting to apply recognition. That's why it wouldn't stand up in a European court. It's an unreliable witness statement.

A very good case in point was on TV last night featuring a case where a man was convicted of the murder of his mother in law and rape of his niece (in the US). There was no remarkable DNA evidence to implicate this man but the niece was sure it must have been him and it was her testimony to that, that convicted him. He escaped the death penalty on a technicality.

Two years later his wife after a painstaking effort by herself (as the police weren't interested) - not only found leads to DNA evidence and an alternate theory, but also found a suspect (a convicted sexual offender who at the time turned out to be staying two doors down). The police and prosecutors finally took note and the right man is now behond bars.

See what I mean about theories that are not proven by hard evidence...innocent people end up in prison (esp. in the US). Public speculation forms opinion and there is no way that a fair trial could ever take place if the McCanns were ever to be charged with anything.

And lowering yourself to belittling any counter argument with comments like don't post....and what's your point?... isn't helping your debate. My points have been clear I think.

Emerson, I share your sentiment entirely.....and hope for a happy outcome if one ever comes.

[huncamunca]

.

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Bellenden Belle has put is succinctly. The replies

> are obsessive and now patronising too.

>

> Sue, I keep replying with the same counter

> argument...because the theory you keep listing

> details of is flawed...something you seem unable

> to accept or comprehend

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Pots and kettles here, DJKQ, I think.

But at risk of again being called patronising, you don't seem to understand what a theory IS.

[DJKillaQueen]

But what truth Sue...you know no more know what that is than any Police officer, journalist or us.....you are just adding to the fog. It's been raked over a million times in every corner......no one has the answers. And whilst I admire your crusade there are a ton of journalists who will be the first to know if anything new comes to light, and inform us all. It's their job after all.

We all get deeply affected by different things (usually because it touches on something personal to us) but as MP alluded to...there are far more constructive things to get obsessed about where something can be made to happen (for the good of that cause), than a case that is dead in the water and from which no amount of theorising will change that.

[DJKillaQueen]

you don't seem to understand what a theory IS

See ...patronising.

I do fully understand what a theory is, and understand that others can exist alongside. Your argument focusses on one and dismisses all others in pursuit, as you put it 'of truth'. Truth or theory...which is it Sue?

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

>And whilst I admire your

> crusade there are a ton of journalists who will be

> the first to know if anything new comes to light,

> and inform us all. It's their job after all.

>

>

xxxxxxxxx

Are you serious? Have you read my post of 02.33 above?

Sometimes it seems as if you fire off posts without having read a word I've said :-S

[Sue]

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

> DJKillaQueen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>.something you seem

> unable

> > to accept or comprehend

xxxxxxxx

And that's completely unpatronising, yes? :))

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Truth or

> theory...which is it Sue?

xxxxxxxx

I think this is where I just give up.

You don't seem to have properly read any of my posts on this thread.

Nor do you seem to grasp the fact that I am saying that I think that one particular THEORY, looking at available indicative (ie NOT CONCLUSIVE) evidence is the MOST LIKELY in this case, and that I COULD BE WRONG because UNTIL FURTHER EVIDENCE IS FOUND nobody will know.

And that IF further CONCLUSIVE evidence comes along then we will know which THEORY, if any, was proved right, and what was the TRUTH of the case.

And if that sounds patronising, then in this instance, and this instance only, it was meant to be, because I am at the point of making a lot of personal comments about you which I would sorely regret later on.

[DJKillaQueen]

Grow up ffs....JC.....(and stupid smiley at the end).......

[Sue]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Grow up ffs....JC.....(and stupid smiley at the

> end).......

xxxxxxx

Why exactly are you continuing with this, DJKQ?

I have explained above why I started the thread.

Now you have descended to personal insults.

[DJKillaQueen]

But it's not 'most likely' that's the point...it's just a theory. It could be the ONLY theory and that still doesn't make it MOST LIKELY......that is something you have decided for yourself. There's no hard evidence for any of it....

If you can't deal with counter argument without taking it personally Sue then maybe you shouldn't post in a forum. That's all I can say really to the rein you feel you have to put on yourself from making personal comments about someone you know nothing about in person.

[Keef]

The replies are obsessive and now patronising too

Oh the irony!

[DJKillaQueen]

You stole that from another thread keef lol...I know you did lol....;-)