Madeleine McCann's parents win Portuguese libel case and awarded £357k

by Guest Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:49 pm

First topic message reminder :

Goncalo Amaral, the police chief who led the initial investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, has been ordered to pay her parents £357,000 in damages because of hurt caused to them following the publication of his book “The Truth of the Lie”. The Civil Court of Lisbon also banned further sale of the book in which Mr Amaral claimed Madeleine had not been abducted, but had died in an accident in Praia da Luz.
Kate and Gerry McCann launched a libel action against Mr Amaral, who was sacked from the investigation after several months of blunders, claiming they and their family had suffered emotional and psychological harm as a result of the claims made in the book.
Mr Amaral’s legal team have leave to appeal the award.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11568725/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-awarded-357k-in-Portuguese-libel-case.html

by nicko Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:48 am

I'd like to know why so much time and money has been spent on this when other missing children don't get a mention!

by Andy Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:40 am

Just a quick point, why would the McCanns kill Maddie then spend the next 10 years of their lives fund raising and millions of pounds in the continuing search for her in the knowledge that she was already dead.

The sensible course would be to cover it up , deflect the investigation and try to move on.
Only a truly evil couple would be able to keep up the pretence for so long, and whilst they may not be a perfect couple, there is no evidence that they wished harm on little Maddie or her siblings.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:11 am

Handy Andy wrote:Just a quick point, why would the McCanns kill Maddie then spend the next 10 years of their lives fund raising and millions of pounds in the continuing search for her in the knowledge that she was already dead.

The sensible course would be to cover it up , deflect the investigation and try to move on.
Only a truly evil couple would be able to keep up the pretence for so long, and whilst they may not be a perfect couple, there is no evidence that they wished harm on little Maddie or her siblings.

Morning Andy

They would have to be evil beyond belief and show other signs in neglect to the other children on numerous occasions of which again this just does not fit. I do not rule out foul play by the parents, but it is far feteched thaat they could of done this based on the time frame and window of opportunity. It dramatically decreases the chances they could have done this. Most evidence you see come out is views based on the parents reaction, which is jsut utterly absurd, because unless anyone goes through this themselves, they would have very little to guage how they would react. It is all speculative accusations made and in many claims based off misread information or even incorrect claims from the press. The fact is because they went out to dinner a short distance from where their accomadation was people have straight away taken them as guilty. This straight away has an immeidate bias against them, where as seen, then people try to make a case fit against them to them being guilty. What they fail to do in this process is eliminate possibilities. Like as I have shown with the small window time frame of disposing of a body.

The time frame makes it near impossible they could have done this, let alone no evidence of them being seen in this time frame being suspcious. They had no tools or transport, thus limiting the area she could have been buried or hidden. The heat would have decomposed the body quickly and the stench from this would have made finding her very quickly in that heat. That only really leaves burying where again, they are limited to this having to be near to their accomadation, with no transport or record of them ordering a cab. Again time is a huge factor, no evidence of tools etc wikth time enough to bury her body if done by hands. When you look closer at the theories they do easily fall apart.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:12 am

Handy Andy wrote:Just a quick point, why would the McCanns kill Maddie then spend the next 10 years of their lives fund raising and millions of pounds in the continuing search for her in the knowledge that she was already dead.

The sensible course would be to cover it up , deflect the investigation and try to move on.
Only a truly evil couple would be able to keep up the pretence for so long, and whilst they may not be a perfect couple, there is no evidence that they wished harm on little Maddie or her siblings.

This is what I think too.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:24 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Clarence Mitchell was strangely appointed to help the mccanns very early on.

In a bizarre twist, the disappearance of Madeline McCann in 2007, also has links to the murder of Jill Dando.
The government spokesman who was strangely appointed to help the McCanns, was Clarence Mitchell.
Mitchell was one of the first reporters on the scene when Jill was brutally murdered in 1999.
” We know he was closely involved with the Fred and Rosemary West case, in 1993, where a murderous couple had killed young girls and buried the bodies under their patio in Gloucester.
He reported on the death of Michael Hutchence in 1997.
He was also one of the first reporters to arrive at Gowan Avenue, Fulham in south west London, when the immensely popular BBC TV presenter Jill Dando was shot dead in a murder many feel has never been satisfactorily explained.
Towards the end of his BBC career Clarence became heavily used on royal stories. He was deeply involved in coverage of the post-Diana era and the death of the Queen Mother. Many people feel the facts surrounding the deaths of Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana never truly established.”
Some voices allege that Gerry McCann was given special treatment by the authorities because he was a high-ranking Freemason in Leicestershire.
The area has links to a huge VIP child-abuse network going back decades and is also where disgraced peer, Greville Janner was given his peerage by Tony Blair:
” In 1994, Frank Beck died in Whitemoor prison whilst serving a staggering 5 life sentences for alleged child abuse.
Frank Beck had been implicated in the abuse of boys in Leicestershire care homes.
Frank Beck had always maintained his innocence and claimed he was imprisoned because he’d exposed alleged abuse by a high-profile politician.
In 2011 the following anonymous comments were left on a blog which was discussing his death:
“ In 1991, after accusing Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period.
At his trial Beck stated that: – “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner“.
When Janner was ennobled in 1997, he took the title, Lord Janner of Braunstone.
The man responsible for ennobling Greville Janner was Tony Blair.
The following very interesting comments were left :
” I was in the courtroom when beck gave his evidence in full :his death by food poisoning in custody was very convenient for all those he said he had supplied the boys to in the local area .”
” Blair had a macabre sense of humour as Braunstone is the area Frank Beck used to live in. Beck was guilty. But he almost nailed Greville Janner.”
In 2007, the Express published an article about the McCanns:
” Madeleine: British Diplomat had doubts about McCanns
Daily Express:
3 December 2007 (no longer on-line)
A British diplomat warned the Foreign Office of concerns regarding Madeleine McCann’s parents, it emerged last night. Doubts about Kate and Gerry McCann were raised almost immediately by an official sent to Praia da Luz due to what he considered to be “inconsistencies” in the couple’s testimonies about the night the four-year-old vanished.
The warning was contained in a classified document sent from the Algarve to the Foreign Office days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Details of the letter have been leaked through the British diplomatic mission in Brussels to the respected Belgian newspaper Derniere Heure.
The unnamed diplomat voices his concern about the “confused declarations” as to the whereabouts of Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends in the final hours before Madeleine’s disappearance. He also mentions the couple’s “lack of co-operation” with the Portuguese police in the light of instructions from London suggesting consular staff “overstretch their authority and put pressure on the Portuguese authorities”.
The document also asks for confirmation of orders sent by the Foreign Office in London the day before, commanding embassy staff to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple”.

https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-national-archives-fire-jimmy-savile-mi5-margaret-thatcher-prince-philip-madeline-mccann-and-britains-dirty-secrets/

Madeleine McCann's parents win Portuguese libel case and awarded £357k - Page 3 11174910

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:27 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:Just a quick point, why would the McCanns kill Maddie then spend the next 10 years of their lives fund raising and millions of pounds in the continuing search for her in the knowledge that she was already dead.

The sensible course would be to cover it up , deflect the investigation and try to move on.
Only a truly evil couple would be able to keep up the pretence for so long, and whilst they may not be a perfect couple, there is no evidence that they wished harm on little Maddie or her siblings.

This is what I think too.

Thats because your completely sane and have control of your imagination raggs ......along with Andy me and Nemesis......and anybody else who thinks this is just bullshit hate fest towards the Mcanns

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:31 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

This is what I think too.
Thats because your completely sane and have control of your imagination raggs ......

Well there have been cases of people drawing attention to a crime they committed - Ian Huntley, for example, spoke to the press quite a lot when the girls were missing, and all the time he knew that he had killed them. However, I don't think the McCanns would do it for so long and involve so many people if they knew what had happened.

by Irn Bru Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:46 am

If the evidence that the McCann's murdered their daughter is so overwhelming then they would have been charged by now surely. They haven't so they are innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Everybody and their dog has had an opinion on this and none of is based on anything other than what has been published in the media or stuff said on social media sites much of which has [probably been twisted out of shape.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:48 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
Thats because your completely sane and have control of your imagination raggs ......

Well there have been cases of people drawing attention to a crime they committed - Ian Huntley, for example, spoke to the press quite a lot when the girls were missing, and all the time he knew that he had killed them. However, I don't think the McCanns would do it for so long and involve so many people if they knew what had happened.

Rags you should not have mentioned ian Huntley lol
That will open up another can of worms for a certain poster on another conspiracy theory.
If they do, you will see what I mean.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:43 am

Nemesis wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there have been cases of people drawing attention to a crime they committed - Ian Huntley, for example, spoke to the press quite a lot when the girls were missing, and all the time he knew that he had killed them. However, I don't think the McCanns would do it for so long and involve so many people if they knew what had happened.

Rags you should not have mentioned ian Huntley lol
That will open up another can of worms for a certain poster on another conspiracy theory.
If they do, you will see what I mean.

although i see what raggs is saying ian Huntley (spit) was a completely different set of circumstances they was evidence lots of it in the end the police solved it in a couple of weeks not years of investigation

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:49 am

korban dallas wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

Rags you should not have mentioned ian Huntley lol
That will open up another can of worms for a certain poster on another conspiracy theory.
If they do, you will see what I mean.
although i see what raggs is saying ian Huntley (spit) was a completely different set of circumstances they was evidence lots of it in the end the police solved it in a couple of weeks not years of investigation

Agreed on what you say.

My point is around how a certain poster thinks the Ian Huntley case is also a conspiracy theory and how metioning this will no doubt also open a can of worms.
Just giving you the heads up, as this one is even more far fetched, believe me.
This same poster believes the moon landings did not happen and many more lol.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 30, 2015 9:51 am

korban dallas wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

Rags you should not have mentioned ian Huntley lol
That will open up another can of worms for a certain poster on another conspiracy theory.
If they do, you will see what I mean.
although i see what raggs is saying ian Huntley (spit) was a completely different set of circumstances they was evidence lots of it in the end the police solved it in a couple of weeks not years of investigation

It was just an example of how someone can draw attention to themselves when they knew exactly what had happened, and had actually committed the crime themselves. There was no evidence against him at the time he did that. Anyway, I wasn't referring to evidence, I was referring to the issue of drawing attention to a crime.

I sort of think the same thing about Jeremy Bamber, but that's different because he has a lot to gain by drawing attention to the crime.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:05 am

After the girls were reported missing, the police released photographs – taken only hours before their disappearance – of them wearing Manchester United replica football shirts and a physical description of each of them, describing them as "white, about 4 ft 6 in tall and slim".

Meanwhile, Huntley appeared in television interviews on Sky News and the BBC's regional news programme Look East, speaking of the shock in the local community. One reporter suggested to Huntley that he may have been the last person to speak to the girls before they disappeared, to which Huntley replied: "Yeah, that's what it seems like."[1] Huntley said their disappearance was "absolutely" a mystery and that "while there's no news there's still that glimmer of hope, and that's basically what we're all hanging on to." Carr, a teaching assistant at the school Huntley was also caretaker for, was interviewed by the press as well. She showed a reporter a thank-you card Wells had given her on the last day of the school year. Carr said: "She was just lovely, really lovely" and urged the missing girls to "just come home".The police immediately noticed that Carr was referring to Wells in the past tense, although she had not been reported dead.

On 16 August, 12 days after the girls went missing, Huntley and Carr were first questioned by police and agreed to give witness statements during seven hours of questioning before being released. That night, police searched Huntley and Carr's home, as well as the grounds of Soham Village College, and recovered items of "major importance" to their investigation.

this is just for information but look how easy it was for them to slip up and incriminate them self`s

by Lone Wolf Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:08 am

THE McCann's British lawyers are probably the biggest winner's out of these ongoing sagas...

THE sharks and Shylocks always get their percentages..

Madeleine McCann's parents win Portuguese libel case and awarded £357k - Page 3 1284863816

Madeleine McCann's parents win Portuguese libel case and awarded £357k - Page 3 1284863816

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:09 am

korban dallas wrote:After the girls were reported missing, the police released photographs – taken only hours before their disappearance – of them wearing Manchester United replica football shirts and a physical description of each of them, describing them as "white, about 4 ft 6 in tall and slim".

Meanwhile, Huntley appeared in television interviews on Sky News and the BBC's regional news programme Look East, speaking of the shock in the local community. One reporter suggested to Huntley that he may have been the last person to speak to the girls before they disappeared, to which Huntley replied: "Yeah, that's what it seems like."[1] Huntley said their disappearance was "absolutely" a mystery and that "while there's no news there's still that glimmer of hope, and that's basically what we're all hanging on to." Carr, a teaching assistant at the school Huntley was also caretaker for, was interviewed by the press as well. She showed a reporter a thank-you card Wells had given her on the last day of the school year. Carr said: "She was just lovely, really lovely" and urged the missing girls to "just come home".The police immediately noticed that Carr was referring to Wells in the past tense, although she had not been reported dead.

On 16 August, 12 days after the girls went missing, Huntley and Carr were first questioned by police and agreed to give witness statements during seven hours of questioning before being released. That night, police searched Huntley and Carr's home, as well as the grounds of Soham Village College, and recovered items of "major importance" to their investigation.

this is just for information but look how easy it was for them to slip up and incriminate them self`s

Hang on a minute. Maxine Carr was acquitted of assisting an offender - ie, she did not know that they were dead, and she did not know that Huntley had killed them at the time.

by nicko Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:23 am

I will ask again, why was so much time and money spent on this case when hundreds of children have gone missing before, and after this happened. What was so different about this one?

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:42 am

nicko wrote:I will ask again, why was so much time and money spent on this case when hundreds of children have gone missing before, and after this happened. What was so different about this one?

Public interest has generated more money with this.

Is it right that more has been put into this than others?

No

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:After the girls were reported missing, the police released photographs – taken only hours before their disappearance – of them wearing Manchester United replica football shirts and a physical description of each of them, describing them as "white, about 4 ft 6 in tall and slim".

Meanwhile, Huntley appeared in television interviews on Sky News and the BBC's regional news programme Look East, speaking of the shock in the local community. One reporter suggested to Huntley that he may have been the last person to speak to the girls before they disappeared, to which Huntley replied: "Yeah, that's what it seems like."[1] Huntley said their disappearance was "absolutely" a mystery and that "while there's no news there's still that glimmer of hope, and that's basically what we're all hanging on to." Carr, a teaching assistant at the school Huntley was also caretaker for, was interviewed by the press as well. She showed a reporter a thank-you card Wells had given her on the last day of the school year. Carr said: "She was just lovely, really lovely" and urged the missing girls to "just come home".The police immediately noticed that Carr was referring to Wells in the past tense, although she had not been reported dead.

On 16 August, 12 days after the girls went missing, Huntley and Carr were first questioned by police and agreed to give witness statements during seven hours of questioning before being released. That night, police searched Huntley and Carr's home, as well as the grounds of Soham Village College, and recovered items of "major importance" to their investigation.

this is just for information but look how easy it was for them to slip up and incriminate them self`s

Hang on a minute. Maxine Carr was acquitted of assisting an offender - ie, she did not know that they were dead, and she did not know that Huntley had killed them at the time.

Maxine Carr initially provided a false alibi to police for Huntley, claiming to have been with him at the time of the murders when she was in fact in Grimsby. She was charged with perverting the course of justice soon after her arrest in August 2002, and in January 2003 she was charged on two counts of assisting an offender. She pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second.

Her failure to expose Huntley's lies in the early stages of the investigation (before either of them was arrested) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect; due to her false statement, it took the police nearly two weeks to arrest and charge him

however remember The police immediately noticed that Carr was referring to Wells in the past tense,on the card although she had not been reported dead.

so you could argue she did know but got away with it
i am not going to argue that because its been dealt with and i don`t have enough information to make that claim people better positioned than me with more information made that determination

i am not saying your wrong about your premiss Raggs
i am just saying the circumstances are not necessarily the same

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:04 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Hang on a minute. Maxine Carr was acquitted of assisting an offender - ie, she did not know that they were dead, and she did not know that Huntley had killed them at the time.
Maxine Carr initially provided a false alibi to police for Huntley, claiming to have been with him at the time of the murders when she was in fact in Grimsby. She was charged with perverting the course of justice soon after her arrest in August 2002, and in January 2003 she was charged on two counts of assisting an offender. She pleaded guilty to the first charge and not guilty to the second.

Her failure to expose Huntley's lies in the early stages of the investigation (before either of them was arrested) meant that police initially eliminated Huntley as a suspect; due to her false statement, it took the police nearly two weeks to arrest and charge him

however remember The police immediately noticed that Carr was referring to Wells in the past tense,on the card although she had not been reported dead.

so you could argue she did know but got away with it
i am not going to argue that because its been dealt with and i don`t have enough information to make that claim people better positioned than me with more information made that determination

i am not saying your wrong about your premiss Raggs
i am just saying the circumstances are not necessarily the same

I know about the trial and what she was accused of.

I don't think she knew he killed them or that they were dead - not at first. I think she said she was there at the house because Huntley convinced her that he would be unfairly accused if she didn't - based on things he'd been accused of previously. Talking about them in the past tense doesn't necessarily mean anything. In any case, the jury believed that she didn't know.

In fact, had it not been such a profile case, she might not have been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice at all. A lot of people lie to the police and don't get prosecuted for it.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:00 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:The detectives book outlines the facts of The investigation, And mentions the highly unusual high level British involvement that was at best counterproductive at worst clearly intending to scupper the case against the mccanns.
so now its a government conspiracy Jesus H Christ
with all due respect but you guys are bloody nuts and i for one not going to feed your paranoia any further i suggest nobody else does

Paranoia?
Really? People in high places covering up the abuse and killing of children?
Have you been aware of the recent discoveries concerning the wholesale cover ups of child abuse??

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:06 pm

Nems wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
so now its a government conspiracy Jesus H Christ
with all due respect but you guys are bloody nuts and i for one not going to feed your paranoia any further i suggest nobody else does

Paranoia?
Really? People in high places covering up the abuse and killing of children?
Have you been aware of the recent discoveries concerning the wholesale cover ups of child abuse??

Yes extreme paranoia.
Just because there has been some failures by some councils and a possibility of a cover up with Ministers in a child abuse scandal does not mean two ordinary middle class doctors are. It is again simply finding any absurd reason to find guilt with the couple. Again can you offer a valid reason to how they could have disposed or hidden the body if as you seem to believe they killed the child in the space of a couple of hours?

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:10 pm

In fact, re the Huntley case, I've never really understood why Maxine Carr saying she was at home altered the course of the investigation. Huntley had said that he had seen the girls, and admitted that he was probably at least one of the last people to see them alive. Did the police not search the house at the time because they thought Maxine was there too. Did they assume that a woman would not be involved in anything like that?

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:11 pm

Nems wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
so now its a government conspiracy Jesus H Christ
with all due respect but you guys are bloody nuts and i for one not going to feed your paranoia any further i suggest nobody else does

Paranoia?
Really? People in high places covering up the abuse and killing of children?
Have you been aware of the recent discoveries concerning the wholesale cover ups of child abuse??

If the shoe fits
Paranoia
Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:17 pm

Nemesis wrote:
Nems wrote:

Paranoia?
Really? People in high places covering up the abuse and killing of children?
Have you been aware of the recent discoveries concerning the wholesale cover ups of child abuse??

Yes extreme paranoia.
Just because there has been some failures by some councils and a possibility of a cover up with Ministers in a child abuse scandal does not mean two ordinary middle class doctors are. It is again simply finding any absurd reason to find guilt with the couple. Again can you offer a valid reason to how they could have disposed or hidden the body if as you seem to believe they killed the child in the space of a couple of hours?

Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:22 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

Yes extreme paranoia.
Just because there has been some failures by some councils and a possibility of a cover up with Ministers in a child abuse scandal does not mean two ordinary middle class doctors are. It is again simply finding any absurd reason to find guilt with the couple. Again can you offer a valid reason to how they could have disposed or hidden the body if as you seem to believe they killed the child in the space of a couple of hours?
Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings

Agreed and why it astounds me people come to these absurd connections, when they do not look at any of this with any impartiality.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:26 pm

Nemesis wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings

Agreed and why it astounds me people come to these absurd connections, when they do not look at any of this with any impartiality.

We don`t agree on much Didge but i am behind you 100% with this .....absurdity because that`s what this is absurd tangents of logic

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:30 pm

Nemesis wrote:
Nems wrote:

Paranoia?
Really? People in high places covering up the abuse and killing of children?
Have you been aware of the recent discoveries concerning the wholesale cover ups of child abuse??

Yes extreme paranoia.
Just because there has been some failures by some councils and a possibility of a cover up with Ministers in a child abuse scandal does not mean two ordinary middle class doctors are. It is again simply finding any absurd reason to find guilt with the couple. Again can you offer a valid reason to how they could have disposed or hidden the body if as you seem to believe they killed the child in the space of a couple of hours?

In a place/country they where mostly unfamiliar with

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:35 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

Agreed and why it astounds me people come to these absurd connections, when they do not look at any of this with any impartiality.
We don`t agree on much Didge but i am behind you 100% with this .....absurdity because that`s what this is absurd tangents of logic

Agreed and actually think we do agree on more.
As I say they start off with the view of guilt which never allows for an honest look at the evidence.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:38 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

Yes extreme paranoia.
Just because there has been some failures by some councils and a possibility of a cover up with Ministers in a child abuse scandal does not mean two ordinary middle class doctors are. It is again simply finding any absurd reason to find guilt with the couple. Again can you offer a valid reason to how they could have disposed or hidden the body if as you seem to believe they killed the child in the space of a couple of hours?
In a place/country they where mostly unfamiliar with

Indeed, I have asked this before where nobody has provided how this could have been achieved? Let alone factoring in panic, not being seen, no transport, no tools, ground is rock hard, summer heat would decompose the body quicker, hiding the smell, no area close was found to have been dug up etc, etc, etc. All in the space of a few hours.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:15 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Nems wrote:

Paranoia?
Really? People in high places covering up the abuse and killing of children?
Have you been aware of the recent discoveries concerning the wholesale cover ups of child abuse??
If the shoe fits
Paranoia
Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.

So, in the light of all the recent revelations, anyone who suggests there exists an institutionalised cover up of child abuse is paranoid?
Read the evidence, follow the evidence, the truth is out there.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:19 pm

Where was the body? - in the vaults and tunnels under the church
Where was it dumped? Check out the unexplained mileage on the hire car and the stench in the boot of the hire car which was at various times explained away as shitty nappies or rotten meat because when we move we take dirty nappies and rotten food with us don't we? When that was pointed out the smell was attributed to the childrens sweaty sandals.
Yeah right.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:25 pm

OMG a church and tunnels now, I really have heard the most extreme absurdity you will ever find.
So you are saying this was premeditated murder now and they placed the body under a church and this would still not stink due to the decomposition?
Seriously have you ever smelt a dead body decomposing? Believe me you would know because the smell is over bearing and in that heat it would be found very quickly and picked up by people passing by.

They had no hire car at the time of her death and again why is it then the dogs went passed the cars when tested on the hire car they had later if it stank as you claim of death and the dog is supposed to pick up the scent of death?
Why is it it then when enticed back to the car alerted to the door and not the boot?
Do you want to see the video of this where again this dog had to be called back to the car?

Sorry, that is what you call, not understanding biology and again attempting to make things fit which simnply do not.

So again no witnesses saw them near this church or in the tunnels and then be able to clean up all within a couple of hourse before dinner and two doctors knowing how bodies would smell decomposing would leave it where it would easily be found by the smell?

Do you wanna have a rethink Nems?

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:36 pm

Nems wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
If the shoe fits
Paranoia
Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.

So, in the light of all the recent revelations, anyone who suggests there exists an institutionalised cover up of child abuse is paranoid?
Read the evidence, follow the evidence, the truth is out there.

If you have no evidence then yes, you would be deemed paranoid.
Even more so over some middle class GP's
Yes please do read the evidence with an uniased view, instead of one where you have already found them guilty.
Do you know how to look at evidence impartially?

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:38 pm

Just as it cant be proved they killed Madeleine or at least know what happened to her, it cant be proved they didn't. Everything we know points more to their guilt than their innocence.
Oh and BTW it is not church and tunnels now it was the source of interest at the time, you know, why the got the keys to the church, what did the priest find out? Why was he whipped out of PDL toute suite?

I don't think we will ever find out. I just hope that poor little girl is at peace.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:49 pm

Nems wrote:Just as it cant be proved they killed Madeleine or at least know what happened to her, it cant be proved they didn't. Everything we know points more to their guilt than their innocence.
Oh and BTW it is not church and tunnels now it was the source of interest at the time, you know, why the got the keys to the church, what did the priest find out? Why was he whipped out of PDL toute suite?

I don't think we will ever find out. I just hope that poor little girl is at peace.

Nobody has once stated that it is impossible they could of killed her, read back
What has been said it is even less likley that they did than being abducted, because as seen the time frame is too small making it very remote indeed.
Yes it was searched by sniffer dogs and what happened witrh that search nems?
So now the preist has been silenced has he?
Seriously, it just gets more and more far fetched as you go along.
Again you are inventing things which just have no validity.
The fact is your whole theory comes crashing down around your belief in the smell of the hire car. If as you believe they were able to hide her body and for so long, after everyone was searching everywhere, not picking up such a stench. Then to then move this in the hire car is flawed straight away because Eddie for start had to be enticed back to the car and never even alerted to the boot.

Your whole hypothesis hinges on this factor and as seen falls apart as clearly there is no scent of death alerted from boot. Not only that they were in the spotlight for the majority of the time and to then even to risk movin the body if they did successfully hide it would be suicidal with vastly increasing the chances of them being caught. You really need to look at everything you claim with greater scrutiny Nems, because as seen there are many flaws.

So how do you proceed from here Nems, with that hypothesis shattered.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:54 pm

I don't proceed anywhere really. I have my opinion on what happened to Madeleine I have my opinion on the McCanns and their advisers.
We end up in the same place, more questions than answers. the only thing we know for sure is the McCanns took 3 children on holiday and came back with 2.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:58 pm

Nems wrote:I don't proceed anywhere really. I have my opinion on what happened to Madeleine I have my opinion on the McCanns and their advisers.
We end up in the same place, more questions than answers. the only thing we know for sure is the McCanns took 3 children on holiday and came back with 2.

That is because to me Nems, you have taken the stance they are guilty before properly looking at the evidence. You have gone off what others claim and then think it fits. They are innocent until proven guilty and from what i can see of the evidence, the chances of them killing her and hiding her body are so remote and very unlikely. So have your opinion, you are of course entittled to this. I make no claim either way and just keep and open mind.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:03 pm

Nemesis wrote:
Nems wrote:I don't proceed anywhere really. I have my opinion on what happened to Madeleine I have my opinion on the McCanns and their advisers.
We end up in the same place, more questions than answers. the only thing we know for sure is the McCanns took 3 children on holiday and came back with 2.

That is because to me Nems, you have taken the stance they are guilty before properly looking at the evidence. You have gone off what others claim and then think it fits. They are innocent until proven guilty and from what i can see of the evidence, the chances of them killing her and hiding her body are so remote and very unlikely. So have your opinion, you are of course entittled to this. I make no claim either way and just keep and open mind.

I didn't you know. I believed every word they said until they were shown to be liars
Have you read every word printed about this case? I have. I have studied and argued the evidence at length
I formed my opinion on what I have read and what I have seen, and in my opinion Madeleine was not abducted at random by a stranger. In my opinion her parents are guilty of at best neglect and at worst covering up a death or even murder.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:10 pm

Nems wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

That is because to me Nems, you have taken the stance they are guilty before properly looking at the evidence. You have gone off what others claim and then think it fits. They are innocent until proven guilty and from what i can see of the evidence, the chances of them killing her and hiding her body are so remote and very unlikely. So have your opinion, you are of course entittled to this. I make no claim either way and just keep and open mind.

I didn't you know. I believed every word they said until they were shown to be liars
Have you read every word printed about this case? I have. I have studied and argued the evidence at length
I formed my opinion on what I have read and what I have seen, and in my opinion Madeleine was not abducted at random by a stranger. In my opinion her parents are guilty of at best neglect and at worst covering up a death or even murder.

How exactly are they liars. This one always gets me.
I mean for one place yourself in their position, where you are being excused of killing your own child, would you get defensive over this and also easily confujse things said?
Sorry that is one of the poorer claims made in regards to them lying and again it is people trying to find again reason to find them guilty.
I have read this case time and time again, hence why I know many of the flaws in this as seen where I have already shown flaws to views made, as I know korben can easily do so also
They may well be negligent in leavin their children a distance from themselves, as that is also what you are claiming which again is subjective. None of us can keep 24/7 eyes on our children and hence at some points they are vunerable. Was it excessive the distance in this case?
Yes, but that does not make them guilty or to blame for someone abducting theier child the most likeliest scenario here, because again if you cannot provide a viable reason with evidence top them being able to kill and dispose of the body, then the abduction is the most likely.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:15 pm

I will add there is no way of knowing if she is dead, as Eddie is unreliable based on the evidence I have seen. You either take the view she can make mistakes, of which no dog is infalliable olr the dog clearly never alerted to any death scent. There is no evidence for the claims made by the owner in any previous cases. The claims to her training is suspect and we know she made a mistake in a previous case where she alerted to a coconut shell. We know she sniffed and chewed the toy not even alerting to this, to then beiong coached back to it later and alerting to this. That leaves open many questions and even more so to the theory of the hire car where again no scent is picked up from the boot and again she has to be called back. That really leaves open to if Maddie is alive or dead as the Dog is unreliable in that its evidence shows many conflicts and thus does not prove that she is dead, hence why she could very much still be alive.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:51 pm

Nemesis wrote:
Nems wrote:

I didn't you know. I believed every word they said until they were shown to be liars
Have you read every word printed about this case? I have. I have studied and argued the evidence at length
I formed my opinion on what I have read and what I have seen, and in my opinion Madeleine was not abducted at random by a stranger. In my opinion her parents are guilty of at best neglect and at worst covering up a death or even murder.

How exactly are they liars. This one always gets me.
I mean for one place yourself in their position, where you are being excused of killing your own child, would you get defensive over this and also easily confujse things said?
Sorry that is one of the poorer claims made in regards to them lying and again it is people trying to find again reason to find them guilty.
I have read this case time and time again, hence why I know many of the flaws in this as seen where I have already shown flaws to views made, as I know korben can easily do so also
They may well be negligent in leavin their children a distance from themselves, as that is also what you are claiming which again is subjective. None of us can keep 24/7 eyes on our children and hence at some points they are vunerable. Was it excessive the distance in this case?
Yes, but that does not make them guilty or to blame for someone abducting theier child the most likeliest scenario here, because again if you cannot provide a viable reason with evidence top them being able to kill and dispose of the body, then the abduction is the most likely.

They lied when the said the shutters were jemmied, that's not hearsay they said it live on camera.
Didn't you see that interview?
Didn't you see that lie?

As for keeping an eye on your children, that is somewhat different to leaving 3 children under 3 alone in an unsafe location.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:55 pm

Nemesis wrote:I will add there is no way of knowing if she is dead, as Eddie is unreliable based on the evidence I have seen. You either take the view she can make mistakes, of which no dog is infalliable olr the dog clearly never alerted to any death scent. There is no evidence for the claims made by the owner in any previous cases. The claims to her training is suspect and we know she made a mistake in a previous case where she alerted to a coconut shell. We know she sniffed and chewed the toy not even alerting to this, to then beiong coached back to it later and alerting to this. That leaves open many questions and even more so to the theory of the hire car where again no scent is picked up from the boot and again she has to be called back. That really leaves open to if Maddie is alive or dead as the Dog is unreliable in that its evidence shows many conflicts and thus does not prove that she is dead, hence why she could very much still be alive.

Don't start with Haut de la Garenne, because believe me I do know more about that than you.
The dogs are not unreliable, aren't they on their way to Nepal as we speak?

by nicko Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:02 pm

How ever way you look at it they should have been charged with child neglect at the least. The person living down stairs said "I heard the children crying on several nights"

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:04 pm

Nems wrote:
Nemesis wrote:I will add there is no way of knowing if she is dead, as Eddie is unreliable based on the evidence I have seen. You either take the view she can make mistakes, of which no dog is infalliable olr the dog clearly never alerted to any death scent. There is no evidence for the claims made by the owner in any previous cases. The claims to her training is suspect and we know she made a mistake in a previous case where she alerted to a coconut shell. We know she sniffed and chewed the toy not even alerting to this, to then beiong coached back to it later and alerting to this. That leaves open many questions and even more so to the theory of the hire car where again no scent is picked up from the boot and again she has to be called back. That really leaves open to if Maddie is alive or dead as the Dog is unreliable in that its evidence shows many conflicts and thus does not prove that she is dead, hence why she could very much still be alive.

Don't start with Haut de la Garenne, because believe me I do know more about that than you.
The dogs are not unreliable, aren't they on their way to Nepal as we speak?

So you are claiming dogs are infalliable?
You want to go on record and state this?
Really then expalin all the conflicts and again how there is no evidence from previous cases apart from the one found where the dog alerted to a coconut?
Yes please explain how the dog cheewed and ignored the toy only to be coached into coming back and then alerting. How the dog had to be coached back to the car?
please present your expertise on sniffer dogs also?
Claiming you know more when not showing anything more is a weak reply

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:05 pm

nicko wrote:How ever way you look at it they should have been charged with child neglect at the least. The person living down stairs said "I heard the children crying on several nights"

Exactly Nicko

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:07 pm

Nemesis wrote:
Nems wrote:

Don't start with Haut de la Garenne, because believe me I do know more about that than you.
The dogs are not unreliable, aren't they on their way to Nepal as we speak?

What about the teeth?

So you are claiming dogs are infalliable?
You want to go on record and state this?
Really then expalin all the conflicts and again how there is no evidence from previous cases apart from the one found where the dog alerted to a coconut?
Yes please explain how the dog cheewed and ignored the toy only to be coached into coming back and then alerting. How the dog had to be coached back to the car?
please present your expertise on sniffer dogs also?
Claiming you know more when not showing anything more is a weak reply

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:09 pm

Nems wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

How exactly are they liars. This one always gets me.
I mean for one place yourself in their position, where you are being excused of killing your own child, would you get defensive over this and also easily confujse things said?
Sorry that is one of the poorer claims made in regards to them lying and again it is people trying to find again reason to find them guilty.
I have read this case time and time again, hence why I know many of the flaws in this as seen where I have already shown flaws to views made, as I know korben can easily do so also
They may well be negligent in leavin their children a distance from themselves, as that is also what you are claiming which again is subjective. None of us can keep 24/7 eyes on our children and hence at some points they are vunerable. Was it excessive the distance in this case?
Yes, but that does not make them guilty or to blame for someone abducting theier child the most likeliest scenario here, because again if you cannot provide a viable reason with evidence top them being able to kill and dispose of the body, then the abduction is the most likely.

They lied when the said the shutters were jemmied, that's not hearsay they said it live on camera.
Didn't you see that interview?
Didn't you see that lie?

As for keeping an eye on your children, that is somewhat different to leaving 3 children under 3 alone in an unsafe location.

1. The McCanns originally claimed they found the shutters and window of the children’s room open. They ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An abductor broke in and took Madeleine’. But when police and the managers of the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, they changed their story, saying they must have left the patio doors open. The window had been cleaned the day before. Only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window.

Verdict - False and misleading. The McCanns didn't change their story. Kate's fingerprints were on the inside of the window; it's not known what was found on the outside. Also, MMRG failed to mention the inclusion of the unidentified partial fingerprints which were found on the shutters.#

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077415/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%201

So your claim is they were lying and not mistaken.
yes please prove that nems.
Sorry that again is a poorly false accusation which has no merit again and only because you think they are guilty.

As to children being left alone people do this daily everyday in fact, no doubt including yourself or do you wish to put this to the test?
Again we are talking about distances, because everyone does not keep 24/7 eyes on their children

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:10 pm

Nems wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

What about the teeth?

So you are claiming dogs are infalliable?
You want to go on record and state this?
Really then expalin all the conflicts and again how there is no evidence from previous cases apart from the one found where the dog alerted to a coconut?
Yes please explain how the dog cheewed and ignored the toy only to be coached into coming back and then alerting. How the dog had to be coached back to the car?
please present your expertise on sniffer dogs also?
Claiming you know more when not showing anything more is a weak reply

What teeth.
You are setting yourself up for a big fall, I warn you now.

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:11 pm

Also how about answering all my other points or are you conceeding on them?

by Guest Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:12 pm

nicko wrote:How ever way you look at it they should have been charged with child neglect at the least. The person living down stairs said "I heard the children crying on several nights"

Then best you charge every parent in the world then Nicko and do you know why?

by Sponsored content