A few questions
- Thread starter Stef88
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
[modsnip]
I have followed the evidence and ended up at the same place as Eddie, Keela, The PJ and the Brits before Gordon. It looks like SY may be on the same path too - they've publicly declared Tannerman a red herring.
Unfortunately like JB before her, wealthy parents who can afford PR and Fancy Lawyers and the support of their personal politicians can and do elevate themselves to a position of Untouchable.
Due to the sheer incompetence and headline grabbing of the British media, one can find an MSM article which SEEMS to support the [modsnip] view, thousands of them after Levenson.
In the McCann's own documentary their lawyers referred to suspicions of their involvement as "clearly ridiculous".
Why is that clear? Because nice [modsnip] folks would never dream of disappearing their kids?
It can and does happen. To have a lawyer name the possibility as ridiculous is beyond precious.
Such is the tone still surrounding this case. Anyone who opines otherwise finds themselves in court. It is almost illegal to suggest the McCann's are anything other than doting parents.
A quick glance at the creche use in the Family Holiday shows they spent as little time as possible with their own children.
I have followed the evidence and ended up at the same place as Eddie, Keela, The PJ and the Brits before Gordon. It looks like SY may be on the same path too - they've publicly declared Tannerman a red herring.
Unfortunately like JB before her, wealthy parents who can afford PR and Fancy Lawyers and the support of their personal politicians can and do elevate themselves to a position of Untouchable.
Due to the sheer incompetence and headline grabbing of the British media, one can find an MSM article which SEEMS to support the [modsnip] view, thousands of them after Levenson.
In the McCann's own documentary their lawyers referred to suspicions of their involvement as "clearly ridiculous".
Why is that clear? Because nice [modsnip] folks would never dream of disappearing their kids?
It can and does happen. To have a lawyer name the possibility as ridiculous is beyond precious.
Such is the tone still surrounding this case. Anyone who opines otherwise finds themselves in court. It is almost illegal to suggest the McCann's are anything other than doting parents.
A quick glance at the creche use in the Family Holiday shows they spent as little time as possible with their own children.
You ignore facts, every link we post you call a lie, regardless of what paper or news source we use. Just because you claim it's all lies doesn't mean it is. Some of you act like you have an inside track on the case, when clearly you don't. I don't assume, or speculate without facts to back it up, legitimate facts, not opinionated blogs based on hearsay, gossip and speculation. When a legitimate news source reports something, I factor it into my line of thinking, regardless if it's for or against the Mccanns. I don't brush it off as a lie. I consider all evidence, not what fits my theory only.
If the evidence was so compelling against the Mccann's why were they not arrested?
If the evidence was so compelling against the Mccann's why were they not arrested?
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/arti...ne-mccann-case-was-false-lead-say-police-they
Last paragraph before the time line clearly states the M's are not suspects or persons of interest. We have asked time after time for a legitment source claiming they are suspects or persons of interest, and we get nothing.... Yet we provide source after source showing they are not suspects, only to be told it's all lies. WTF?
Last paragraph before the time line clearly states the M's are not suspects or persons of interest. We have asked time after time for a legitment source claiming they are suspects or persons of interest, and we get nothing.... Yet we provide source after source showing they are not suspects, only to be told it's all lies. WTF?
Wiki leaks founder compares himself to the Mccann's, I wonder if he knows something we don't.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ge-of-him-to-that-of-the-mccanns-7621819.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...ge-of-him-to-that-of-the-mccanns-7621819.html
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
I don't know what level of knowledge you have about the case, as you hadn't read about the colouring book I suspect that there may be some more reading to do.
End of the day there are some things I personally cannot reconcile no matter how many links are posted. Sorry if that offends.
Fudging timescales is not exactly on a par with taking part in a conspiracy to cover up the death and disposal of a child. I really can't think what would be so embarrassing that seven people, some of whom did not know the mccanns well would take part in something of such enormity. They did not make any attempt to cover up the fact they left the children.
People who refer to taking part in covering up a child's death and dumping their body as fudging facts and telling white lies are disregarding the absolute enormity of a child's death IMO.
Pisces Cloud
Active Member
Some people just want them to be suspects so it can fit in with their theories.
Please can you provide evidence that the evidence leads to conclude the mccanns are involved.
Please can you provide the evidence to support the claim that Eddie and keela alerts indicate the mccanns are responsible for the alleged death of madeleine mccann
Can you provide evidence that the British thought the mccanns were responsible, helping to develop the fss findings and dog alerts is not indicative of that IMO.
Can you explain how scotland yard proving tanner told the truth implys they think the mccanns are guilty.
Can you provide evidence that the mccanns are wealthy by British standards, have used their money to gain personal politicians etc.
Can you explain why leveson means the media is now incompetent, surely the fact journalists admitted under oath they wrote rubbish implicating the mccanns demonstrates their incompetence was to be found in those stories.
It is ridiculous to keep suggesting their involvement when along with murat they are the only people on the planet the attorney general has ruled out. And given the hate campaigns against them their lawyer needed to address this.
What has the fact they are white got to do with anything. Race in the UK is a complicated matter, and the mccanns are actually a minority group being irish roman catholic.
Can you please provide evidence that anyone who has opined otherwise has found themselves in court. As far as I am aware the media that published lies about them were threatened with court but backed down and apologized. Tony bennett was only threatened with court after he repeatedly harassed the mccanns and went to their street posting leaflets telling lies about them. If either he or the papers had been telling the truth then they had no problem as despite claims to the opposite in a case like this its simple if bennett was telling the truth then it would have been easy to prove without needing one lawyer. But he backed down and agreed to stop his unpleasant behavior rather than prove his claims. Then there is amaral who has told lie after lie to the population of Portugal IMO, and who himself has taken people to court for libel IMO.
And the creche records cover one week of their lives and were for the kids club which most parents use on these type of holidays, thats why companies advertisement. Suggesting that they are not doting parents because they used the kids club for a few days is unfair IMO.
Thats not what the poster was referring about. She is saying that whilst she and others back up claims in favor of the mccanns we are told its all lies etc without those making claims against the mccanns providing links.
If the mccanns were now suspects someone would be able to link to where me have stated this, but no one has done.
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 74
Nearly 15 months after British toddler Madeleine McCann went missing in Praia da Luz, Portugal, the Portuguese attorney general has ordered a halt to the investigation and cleared the child's parents of any involvement in her disappearance.
"The Attorney General's Office has hereby decided to 'archive' the investigation into the case of Madeleine McCann due to lack of any evidence of any crime being committed by the 'arguidos' [suspects]," Attorney General Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro said today in a statement.
Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat, a property consultant based in Praia da Luz, "are no longer considered suspects in the case of the missing toddler," he added.
In his statement, Monteiro said that the attorney general's office reserved "the right to reopen the investigation, or upon request from an interested party, should there be legitimate cause or significant new evidence emerge."
For now, there are suggestions in the UK media that the evidence that led to the McCanns' being charged was based on incorrect DNA tests.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/t/story?id=5417382&ref=https://www.google.ca/
I suppose this can be interpreted in many ways. The lack of evidence suggests there wasn't enough to arrest and charge the parents. However if new evidence surfaces the case will be reopened. Whether the parents or others. IMO
ETA. As we know the case has been reopened.
"The Attorney General's Office has hereby decided to 'archive' the investigation into the case of Madeleine McCann due to lack of any evidence of any crime being committed by the 'arguidos' [suspects]," Attorney General Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro said today in a statement.
Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat, a property consultant based in Praia da Luz, "are no longer considered suspects in the case of the missing toddler," he added.
In his statement, Monteiro said that the attorney general's office reserved "the right to reopen the investigation, or upon request from an interested party, should there be legitimate cause or significant new evidence emerge."
For now, there are suggestions in the UK media that the evidence that led to the McCanns' being charged was based on incorrect DNA tests.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/t/story?id=5417382&ref=https://www.google.ca/
I suppose this can be interpreted in many ways. The lack of evidence suggests there wasn't enough to arrest and charge the parents. However if new evidence surfaces the case will be reopened. Whether the parents or others. IMO
ETA. As we know the case has been reopened.
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 74
I'd love to know what the text messages and deleted calls were about. I don't know if we'll ever get the answers unless this case goes to trial.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm
Without page numbers or location information in this huge document, all I can find is that the process against the parents was archived - I do not see where they cleared.
"b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code."
Which basically means that PJ didn't have evidence to continue the investigation. The report still calls them "arguidos."
What this means it that the information is open to individual interpretation. You may see it as the McCanns being cleared. Others may see it as the McCanns remaining arguidos. That's fine because at WS everyone gets to interpret the information as they see it - in their own context.
Salem
From the above link:
So the bottom line is that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A when Madeleine cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45 on Tuesday 1st May 2007,
This seems to say that Kate was in the apartment while Madeleine cried for her father (Mrs. Upstairs Lady said that she was saying, Daddy, I eat, I eat, whatever that might mean). But she was crying for her father, even though her mother was there. And the next morning, Madeleine allegedly said, why didn't you come when Sean and I were crying last night (IIRC).
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 74
I must be blind I don't see the I eat I eat part.
This is Mrs Fenn's statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
If you read the links ( http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm ) I posted to the final report it does not say not enough evidence but no evidence against the parents and also lists positive evidence in their favor such as an alibi. From what I can gather when reading the final report the status of aguido is not as strong as suspect in other parts of the world. The way the final report describes having to envoke aguido status in order to question someone about something which may later be used against them sounds very similar to being questioned whilst under caution in the UK IMO.
From what I saw of that link its not a link to the actual files but a personal opinion piece. If the mccanns had phones that only stored a certain amount of texts then they were going to have to delete some to make room for others and it stands to reason they would be selective when deciding what to keep and what to delete. There is noithing in the final report linked to in previous post to suggest the pj thought the phone activity was suspicious IMO. Besides which the service providers could provide such records if requested to do so.
In actual fact it says there was one burglary in the block ( we are talking of a handful of flats not a city block) and one attempted burglary in the block both within the fortnight before Madeleine was taken. And that there had been overall a four fold increase in burglaries in the area around that time. So in the space of two weeks one flat was robbed, another one had an attempted robbery, and a third had a child go missing.
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 74
I don't know where you read " no evidence ". The bolded part says there are no indications of a crime (paraphrasing).
I interpret that to mean they don't have enough evidence.
Right above that bolded part it says that archiving doesn't necessarily mean it's definite and can be irreversible. (Again paraphrasing)
No where do I see they were cleared.
I'm paraphrasing because for some reason it won't allow me to copy and paste
- Status