A few questions

[SapphireSteel]

Murat was treated appallingly as was euclides, I fully agree. But so were the mccanns, and murat was an aguido just as the mccanns were and gas been cleared in just the same manner IMO.

As for Hewlett, he was a convicted paedophile who abducted young girls.

As for the burglars, it could be that they are already in prison or aguidos for burglary if indeed the burglar theory is correct which could prevent press reporting on them. One thing people don't seem to question when discussing if burglars would take a child is how it is known these men were the burglars?

Another reason for not reporting their identities is libel. Tractorman was dead and could not be libeled, and Hewlett was a convicted paedophile so unlikely to convince a court he could be defamed.

Good to see you finally acknowledge the other accusations were libellous and defamatory.

Not so good to see a "they're only scum anyway who cares" when speaking of people who have been shamelessly and intentionally maligned.

Totally shocking to see these Team McCann shenanigans of knowingly accusing innocent people thus wilfully derailing the investigation (thus, the search for their own missing baby!) not even raising an eyebrow

Where the HELL is Madeleine in all this?!

:scared::seeya:

 

[haden]

Totally shocking to see these Team McCann shenanigans of knowingly accusing innocent people thus wilfully derailing the investigation, not even raising an eyebrow.

:scared::seeya:

It was not the McCanns, it was the media accusing these people.. and usually if media accuses you of something then you sue them and if they were wrong then you get a big payout :seeya:

 

[Supernovae]

The M's now have access to all files, if they were suspects in any way their access would be denied.

Great point on not enough vs none on the evidence against the M's, that pretty much says it all

I don't know about the Portuguese files: my understanding is that the bulk of them have been released into the public domain anyway, but Leicestershire Police strongly opposed granting access to the McCanns of the UK end files, for exactly this reason.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

 

[SapphireSteel]

It was not the McCanns, it was the media accusing these people.. and usually if media accuses you of something then you sue them and if they were wrong then you get a big payout :seeya:

Euclides. Hewlett, posh spice pimpleman egg man the gypsies the cleaners Murat ALL came from one source - Team McCann.

They still have these efits on their website and only show the previously suppressed new e fits with the words "it is not possible to be certain" that SY is right that he was the man who took Madeleine. Because it looks like Gerry.

If that's not attempting to mislead, I don't know what is...!

 

[haden]

Euclides. Hewlett, posh spice pimpleman egg man the gypsies the cleaners Murat ALL came from one source - Team McCann.

I don't believe you! And this is only your opinion.

They only might have come from the McCanns at the times there was no active police team searching for Madeleine.

Why they don't provide these people now?

Because they have police teams looking for their child..

 

[Supernovae]

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.

I think what Sapphire Steel is suggesting is that the friends didn't know that this is what happened, if that is indeed what happened, at least not all of them. Nevertheless they were all compromised by the choice to leave the children alone for extended periods of time, and this may explain them potentially fudging the timeline. The timeline is crucial to the alibis as mentioned in the archiving statement, which as has been said, makes some positive (but by no means conclusive) statements in favour of the McCanns but also some significant criticisms of them in terms of their apparent neglect on that night and also there non-cooperation with parts of the investigation, particularly a reconstruction. It's open with the fact that this is a murky and unresolved case with (IMO) many threads that are seemingly difficult to reconcile.

Some may also have been more compromised than others, for example if Gerry Mccann knew where the bodies were buried (metaphorically speaking- think the Gaspar statement).

 

[Supernovae]

The archiving summary says this of the non-reconstruction.

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclassified."

The logical conclusion from this statement is that their innocence remained unproven at the time of writing, at least not conclusively.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Thank you that is exactly what I meant.

Yes it is unlikely that 7 professionals would conspire to hide a murder.

But no one has ever suggested Madeleine was murdered.

Would 7 people conspire to make themselves look less selfish and neglectful and avoid possible life ruining police charges?

Absolutely politicians do it all the time.

 

[haden]

You are mentioning 'McCanns friends' like they were all very good friends..

Well, they weren't.. some of them even did not know each other very well.. but some were good friends..

 

[SapphireSteel]

Yep. In other news the "arrest the burglars" trip to Faro this week by SY lasted half a day with no arrests made.

 

[brit1981]

Good to see you finally acknowledge the other accusations were libellous and defamatory.

Not so good to see a "they're only scum anyway who cares" when speaking of people who have been shamelessly and intentionally maligned.

Totally shocking to see these Team McCann shenanigans of knowingly accusing innocent people thus wilfully derailing the investigation (thus, the search for their own missing baby!) not even raising an eyebrow

Where the HELL is Madeleine in all this?!

:scared::seeya:

Actually as tractorman was dead it was not libelous, as Hewlett was a convicted child abductor and paedophile it was unlikely an accusation of child abduction against him would be considered defamatory.

Murat was defamed, including by amaral imo, and he like the mccanns was given damages by the media.

Please can you provide a link to support your claim it was team mccann who accused these people and how they knew them to be innocent. Tia

 

[brit1981]

There is no evidence the tapas seven tried to hide the fact they left the children either from staff and guests during the holiday or from the police IMO.

They did not do anything illegal anyway.

Not all of the tapas seven did leave their children.

And what's more this is not covering up speeding points, its a child's death. I can see it might be feasible people would lie to claim the parents were there in the flat, but to be open about leaving them whilst hiding her death and body as if its inconsequential is unbelievable IMO.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There you go with a deceased Madeleine again.

I thought you gave no weight to the cadaver dog...?

She cant be deceased for one argument and alive for the other.

Did the burglars steal a corpse?

 

[brit1981]

There you go with a deceased Madeleine again.

I thought you gave no weight to the cadaver dog...?

She cant be deceased for one argument and alive for the other.

Did the burglars steal a corpse?

Presuming you are speaking to me I have not said I believe madeleine is dead, I have said the idea that seven friends and acquaintances decided to cover up a death of a child is ridiculous IMO.

And can you please provide a link to support your claim that team mccann knowingly accused innocent people.

 

[brit1981]

The archiving summary says this of the non-reconstruction.

"We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclassified."

The logical conclusion from this statement is that their innocence remained unproven at the time of writing, at least not conclusively.

Under EU law innocence is never proven since it is the default position, prosecutors can only prove guilt.
But the report refers to the non-involvement of the parents with a list of reasons including alibi, phone analysis etc and states the reasons for them being made an aguido were never confirmed or consolidated. I have linked to this a couple if posts previously. But a final report saying you were not involved and s the nearest in the EU to saying you have been proven innocent.

 

[brit1981]

I think what Sapphire Steel is suggesting is that the friends didn't know that this is what happened, if that is indeed what happened, at least not all of them. Nevertheless they were all compromised by the choice to leave the children alone for extended periods of time, and this may explain them potentially fudging the timeline. The timeline is crucial to the alibis as mentioned in the archiving statement, which as has been said, makes some positive (but by no means conclusive) statements in favour of the McCanns but also some significant criticisms of them in terms of their apparent neglect on that night and also there non-cooperation with parts of the investigation, particularly a reconstruction. It's open with the fact that this is a murky and unresolved case with (IMO) many threads that are seemingly difficult to reconcile.

Some may also have been more compromised than others, for example if Gerry Mccann knew where the bodies were buried (metaphorically speaking- think the Gaspar statement).

Yet the tapas seven all admitted to the childcare arrangements they made no attempt to hide it.
And we are not talking about saying something to make it look like the mccanns were in the flat so any alleged death was not due to neglect, but aiding in the dumping of a child's body. Its just not feasible that they all kept up a lie for seven years. Another issue is he of practicality, if madeleine died that night and one of her parents found her then they had an hour and a half maximum ( eight thirty to ten) to find her dead, explain it to the other parent then get the friends to fudge timelines, cover up the date and dump the body somewhere it has not been found for so long all whilst ordering and eating a two or three course dinner at a public restaurant.

I also don't understand why some people get angry on behalf of a convicted child abductor whilst thinking its OK to accuse the parents. I would think if the mccanns are fair game then so is anyone else.

 

[~n/t~]

There is no evidence the tapas seven tried to hide the fact they left the children either from staff and guests during the holiday or from the police IMO.

They did not do anything illegal anyway.

Not all of the tapas seven did leave their children.

And what's more this is not covering up speeding points, its a child's death. I can see it might be feasible people would lie to claim the parents were there in the flat, but to be open about leaving them whilst hiding her death and body as if its inconsequential is unbelievable IMO.

Are you talking about that night? Yes they all left their children including Tanner whose 3 year old daughter was ill.

 

[~n/t~]

You are mentioning 'McCanns friends' like they were all very good friends..

Well, they weren't.. some of them even did not know each other very well.. but some were good friends..

Did any of the acquaintances check on the kids? I don't recall who were the "friends" and who were "acquaintances"

 

[~n/t~]

Yet the tapas seven all admitted to the childcare arrangements they made no attempt to hide it.
And we are not talking about saying something to make it look like the mccanns were in the flat so any alleged death was not due to neglect, but aiding in the dumping of a child's body. Its just not feasible that they all kept up a lie for seven years. Another issue is he of practicality, if madeleine died that night and one of her parents found her then they had an hour and a half maximum ( eight thirty to ten) to find her dead, explain it to the other parent then get the friends to fudge timelines, cover up the date and dump the body somewhere it has not been found for so long all whilst ordering and eating a two or three course dinner at a public restaurant.

I also don't understand why some people get angry on behalf of a convicted child abductor whilst thinking its OK to accuse the parents. I would think if the mccanns are fair game then so is anyone else.

Who is the convicted child abductor you're referring to?

 

[~n/t~]

Under EU law innocence is never proven since it is the default position, prosecutors can only prove guilt.
But the report refers to the non-involvement of the parents with a list of reasons including alibi, phone analysis etc and states the reasons for them being made an aguido were never confirmed or consolidated. I have linked to this a couple if posts previously. But a final report saying you were not involved and s the nearest in the EU to saying you have been proven innocent.

Their arguidos status was lifted and the case was archived pending further evidence. That's not the same as declaring one innocent of a crime. Where are you getting this info from?