"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case

[Tarot]

When does a thread cease to be interesting and provoking thought.

When the only thing left is cackling hens.

[louisiana]

Sue, if you were Aung San Suu Kyi or even Bradley Manning, or the people with MI5 cars sitting outside their houses day and night at the moment, you might have a point.

But given your position and posts on this matter, I can only laugh.

It is not that anybody would prefer things not to be said, or about making anyone's life any easier. There is no plot and you are not the courageous victim; and if you think there is, you are deluded. (This is, after all, just an internet forum.)

If you want to make a real difference, why not get out there and *do something* and really put your head above the parapet. And learn what a parapet really is.

Sorry, I'm still laughing...

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Sue did espouse an unpopular view and in EDF terms put her head above the parapet, then was promtly set upon.

I don't think it's complicated.

[SeanMacGabhann]

IV

I don?t think people are attacking Sue for having an unpopular view (for what it?s worth at a basic level, she thinks something is fishy in the whole business and so do I, if pushed. Really hard.)

DJKQ might be doing her usual dog-with?bone thing and being OTT with Sue (makes me wonder if there is history there between them?) ? I?ve been there and have some sympathy with Sue on that level

But in general terms people have tried to point out it?s a bit creepy to have THIS level of interest on a topic. To say she was "set upon" is innacurate and over-emotive.

It?s one case in many many many. It made the headlines for some of the reasons outlined. To have SUCH an interst in it so many years later? And by such an interest don?t just mean on a personal level ? I mean to the point of getting all upset when people suggest it might be a bit much

That is what people are struggling with here

Also by using your logic any nitwit could express profoundly ?unpopular? views (and you can image some of the ones that would set you off, right?) and you would expect the general readership to be passive? I don?t think so

So a woman courted publicity by going public with her views, seeking like minded support, and was shocked to find that not everyone agrees with her, and with some people taking against her?

Now does that sound like anyone else involved in this whole sorry business??

[DaveR]

Despite all the cr@p, I'm finding this thread quite interesting in two respects.

Firstly, I'm really trying to understand the motivation for starting it; I can understand a desire to put info into the public domain where there is an important wider issue, but I can't see one here. I think that's why many people have responded negatively - what's the point of this thread (and the forums that apparently exist which are devoted solely to discussing the case) other than to be prurient/sensationalist/conspiracy theorist?

Secondly, the idea that the McCanns are responsible even if their child was abducted by a stranger, because of their 'reckless' behaviour, seems to me very representative of a certain strand of current thinking i.e. that the failure to prevent harm occuring (even where the risk is very remote) is to be equated with directly causing harm, the only difference being the degree of culpability. In some cases this might be more persuasive e.g. psychiatric authorities decide to release an individual who is clearly dangerous, but in this case it looks like sh!te, frankly. "Even if they didn't kill their daughter (accidentally or on purpose) they left her alone and that's almost as bad". Really??

[Sue]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

>

I don?t think people are attacking Sue for having an unpopular view (for what it?s worth at a basic level, she thinks something is fishy in the whole business and so do I, if pushed. Really hard.)

DJKQ might be doing her usual dog-with?bone thing and being OTT with Sue (makes me wonder if there is history there between them?) ? I?ve been there and have some sympathy with Sue on that level

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sorry I missed this bit out when I posted, have edited it.

The only history I am aware of between DJKQ and myself is that she appeared to be doing her best to have our folk events at DHFC closed down because the club had thought they had a late licence when in fact they hadn't (they now have). She made some rather nasty personal remarks to me at the time which she then edited out.

She has today sent me a PM, the contents of which are frankly risible. I must admit I was slightly tempted to post it on here, but as it's a PM I will respect that. Also I do not want to get dragged into other people's games.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> But in general terms people have tried to point

> out it?s a bit creepy to have THIS level of

> interest on a topic.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Is it? I once shared an office with a guy who had a whole room in his house devoted to his collection of pictures of buses. Now that is creepy!

Who can say why one becomes interested in something? FWIW, my family also agrees my interest in this case is a bit over the top :), but I do feel strongly about it for reasons I've already stated.

Also, when I first started following the case, I became interested partly because it was like a real-life detective story, and partly, ironically enough, because I was interested in the various aspects of human nature displayed on the forums discussing it. And also because - as I have said - I became aware for probably the first time in my life (how naive is that) of the distorted information peddled by the press.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To say she was "set upon" is

> innacurate and over-emotive.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I didn't feel I was "set upon", however I did feel a lot of people were behaving in a rather childish knee-jerk way instead of addressing the substantive points. I don't necessarily exclude myself but I did try (and possibly failed) not to descend to the personal insult level.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> It?s one case in many many many. It made the

> headlines for some of the reasons outlined. To

> have SUCH an interst in it so many years later?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It has been kept constantly in the news by the parents themselves and by their "spokesman". The wikileak was also only very recently publicised, as was the overturning on appeal of the ban on the publication of Sr Amaral's book in Portugal. Though the UK press were noticeably less quick to report that then they were to report on the original ban. In fact I'm not sure it's actually been reported at all in this country.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> And by such an interest don?t just mean on a

> personal level ? I mean to the point of getting

> all upset when people suggest it might be a bit

> much

> That is what people are struggling with here

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Where have I got "all upset"? I thought some of the comments were downright offensive and one bordered on obscene, but fair enough, it's a forum and if I post on it I accept that some people are not going to be able to debate in an adult and reasoned way.

I did get upset though when a comment was posting saying that I had said something absolutely vile which I hadn't said, and then the person in question refused to remove the comment.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

>

> Also by using your logic any nitwit could express

> profoundly ?unpopular? views (and you can image

> some of the ones that would set you off, right?)

> and you would expect the general readership to be

> passive? I don?t think so

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There's a difference between debating the subject matter itself and putting forward a different viewpoint in a reasoned way, and being personally offensive.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> So a woman courted publicity by going public with

> her views, seeking like minded support, and was

> shocked to find that not everyone agrees with her,

> and with some people taking against her?

>

> Now does that sound like anyone else involved in

> this whole sorry business??

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As I've tried to explain, it is not the fact that people disagree, it is the fact that they are not disagreeing on questions of fact, but disagreeing about the fact that I have posted at all.

[Sue]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> Despite all the cr@p, I'm finding this thread

> quite interesting in two respects.

>

> Firstly, I'm really trying to understand the

> motivation for starting it;

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I've explained in my OP and then in quite a detailed response to Bellenden Belle (I think) why I started it. Not trying to be rude, but what is it that you don't understand in those posts?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> Secondly, the idea that the McCanns are

> responsible even if their child was abducted by a

> stranger, because of their 'reckless' behaviour,

> seems to me very representative of a certain

> strand of current thinking i.e. that the failure

> to prevent harm occuring (even where the risk is

> very remote)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The risk of abduction was extremely remote, yes.

The risk of vomiting, choking, falling or wandering out of an unlocked apartment was rather higher, I should say, wouldn't you? Not to mention the emotional distress caused on waking up, calling or crying for their parents, and finding themselves - by themselves. That's why most parents don't leave their little children alone. Isn't it?

But I've already pointed this out on the thread, so no doubt will be accused of repetition and going round in circles.

[Sue]

I'm leaving this now and going off to have a lovely Christmas.

To all of you - have a lovely Christmas too.

xx

[DaveR]

Sue, with respect, I don't think you've answered either point. You want people to know more about the case, but to what end? This not about exposing corruption in high places, or excesses of state power, or a threat to freedom and democracy - it's just one case. It seems the true answer is that which you have just acknowledged - even your family recognise that it is an obsession, although they may have put it somewhat more politely. On the second point, you've just shifted the ground, but the basic argument remains - you leave a child in circumstances where they might choke, fall etc. (chances of fatal consequences still pretty remote, in truth) - can this sensibly be equated, in terms of culpability, with actually carrying out an abduction?

Merry Christmas!

[DJKillaQueen]

Sue once again I ask you to cut it out (which is what I asked you to do in the pm too). How many posts do I have to read of you making false accusation and throwing insult. I'm trying to stay away from this thread because I've had enough of you. You are obsessed.

On that DH thread, admin removed a post because you asked them too even though I was absolutely correct in pointing out that DH did not have the licence the licence holder who posted on your thread said he did. I discussed it with admin and pointed out that the post from Nick was factually incorrect but wasn't bothered if my post was returned or not.

It was NEVER about you...but about DH and the licence owner breaching the terms of his licence. A term regarding shutters that you seemed to think shouldn't apply to your gig because it would spoil the atmosphere somehow becomes me trying to ruin your gigs? Pleeasse.

Licensing rules are licensing, I don't make them and no holder has any autonmatic right to break them either...even for your gig. Your subsequent attitude was all about your ego rather than cold acceptance that my points about the license and the law were correct. Do you hold grudges against everyone that proves you wrong in your opinion?

Anyway that's off topic but please do not make things up that aren't true. It does you no favours. Just leave me out of it and enjoy (if you can) the rest of the debate.

[Narnia]

Try harder (?)

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL....I hear ya.....

I'm off for a beer now anyway :)-D

Merry Christmas everyone!

x

[Tarot]

Happy Christmas D.J.K.Q and Sue,

[Jeremy]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> if you don't want this thread to continue, just stop posting!!

[Townleygreen]

I don't know what to say about the spat between Sue and DJKQ, but I must say Sue has raised some interesting points about the McCann case that I was not aware of. Interesting, therefore, but not sure where it gets us. Perhaps the matter should be left there??

[Narnia]

I think it would be if people didn't keep posting.....like me and you.

[Santerme]

Personally, I think the parents were directly responsible for whatever happened to their child.

That kind of sums it up.

[DJKillaQueen]

Every child that disappears is out of sight of their parents at the time. They may be playing in a field like Sarah Payne, or walking home from school. Are those parents responsible for what happens to their children too?

[Santerme]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Every child that disappears is out of sight of

> their parents at the time. They may be playing in

> a field like Sarah Payne, or walking home from

> school. Are those parents responsible for what

> happens to their children too?

Ah projection as a defensive tactic

In the specific case we are discussing it is quite clear that a direct lack of parental supervision or provision of a suitable alternative lead to whatever occurred

The buck stops with them

If they were personally involved in the disappearance, I have a view.

However, I have not seen enough evidence to conclude with reasonable certainty either way the level of their involvement

[Dickensman]

The McCanns are the losers no matter what happened to their offspring.

Whether they had anything to do with it or not, they have lost their child and some might think that is punishment enough.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

You could say that the police officer who was hounded out of his job, or the falsley accused whatisname may also consider themselves to be losers in this matter.

[DJKillaQueen]

More in line with my thinking of the case.

Discredits any theory Almara may have for me.

Notably also the words of the dog handler that so much credance to Almara's theory hingese on.....

The case file contains documents showing that Mark Harrison, the British search expert, and Martin Grimes, the dog-handler, warned that the results should be treated with caution. They insisted that ?corroborating evidence? was needed and that no ?intelligence reliability could be placed on the results?.

Even the expert can see the flaw......

[Huguenot]

August 10th 2008

[DJKillaQueen]

Wikipedia overview

Take a look at the wiki overview of the case. It makes for very interesting reading and demonstrates better than anything that the Almara theory selectively ingnores many credible factors and isn't close to being most likely at all.

The Portuguese Police's failure to quaratine the flat and forensically search it properly are a major reason why anything offered on a forensic level can not be considered. The opportunities for contanimation are numerous. The villa was even rented out again after the disappearance and before the dogs went in.

And consider this statement...

John Barrett, a former Scotland Yard dog handler, said that the dogs used to detect a 'death smell' on Kate's Bible and clothes were brought in too long after Madeleine vanished since the crucial scent lasts for no longer than a month.

There are however other factors to support the theory of abduction....like the burglary that used a key and the speck of DNA found in the bedroom (by the dogs) that did not belong to the McCanns or their three children.

My view is that there is some truth to the criticism that Portuguese Police, instinctively wanted to avoid yet another emabarassment regarding peodophile rings and abduction (the country doesn't have a great record on that) and so preferred to look for a way to implicate the McCanns if they could, but in doing so neglected to run the investigation properly, collect reliable forensic material, and so on.

[louisiana]

ImpetuousVrouw Wrote:

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

> You could say that the police officer who was

> hounded out of his job, or the falsley accused

> whatisname may also consider themselves to be

> losers in this matter.

Didn't the police officer voluntarily retire early, after being taken off the case when a police investigation was launched into his involvement in the alleged torture (severe beatings involving his four staff to extract a 'confession') of another mother (Portuguese) whose child also went missing just a few miles away? Or are you thinking of a different officer?

This would be the same officer that recently said to a Spanish news agency that he believed the British government demanded his removal from the McCann case in exchange for signing the Treaty of Lisbon. (!)