well Amaral is a convicted criminal who s no longer with the police let alone with that case, so if anyone had told him anythign about the review they have done so illegally. But it is good that he is blabbed about this, as it means the leak can be investigated.
Neither the mccanns or murat have to be cleared by law. They along with everyone else are automatically considered in the clear unless evidence against them is found. The AG stated that there was no evidence that any of the three had committed ANY crime whatsoever.
And if her parents were not there when madeleine died, then it measn she died after eight thirty when they were seen appaearing at dinner, and ten when people started searching the flat and did nto find her. this therefore means that since the mccanns were each only alone for five minutes during this one hour and a half, that they had to come back to the flat, find her dead, decided she coudl nto be helped, decide to hide the death, and then hide her body in the village whilst on foot, with no digging implements in a public accessible place somewhere it was never ever found, with not one witness all within five minutes whilst their partner was at dinner. They then had to go back to the tapas bar, and surrounded by eight other peopel at their table plus staff and other guests tell their partner what had happened, and tell jane tanner and possibly matt oldfield to concoct a lie. I can just imagine that coversation, which means that as kate was seen coming back screaming by guests and staff and so did not have a chance to tell anyone else anything, it means gerry did this on his check. Which also means that he was extremely cool, as well as lucky as he had no reason to know jermey wilkins would be there. I can also imagine that conversation when he got back to the table - "sorry I am late back darling, but i was chatting to a tennis friend. Oh by the way when i went back to the flat I found our eldest daughter dead, so i thought we shoudl cover it up, and therefore i have already dumped the body somewhere in the village - it only took two minutes. Oh and will everyone else mind helping cover-up the death too. I know i have only met some of you a couple fo times, and in fact have only met one of you since being here on holiday, but you don't mind do you?".
And once again is it any wonder the conspiracy theories do not get taken seriously.
But It sounds as if you now think the only reason her parents alleles were there were because it was madeleine's dna. However, you forget that the material found in the boot, could not be said to be madeleine's because it was a mixed sample from up to five people, and contained no identifiable sequence. It was just a mixture of alleles that could have been donated by anyone or any number of the three to five donors. Therefore it is impossible to say who donated those 15 alleles. there is no way anyone can say madeleine donated them and not her parents. In fact it is impossible to say whether these allelese even came from one person. they could have come from up to five people.
and yes I am a random on the internet, but then I am also not demanding scotland yard show me all their evidence, or chirply going along accusing people of things without a shred of evidence. I do not have that sense of self entitlement.
I find your writing kind of hard to read and I am still trying to figure out what "chirply" means. But I will make a couple of comments.
In an earlier post you commented on how any child abduction is risky. There is some truth to that, but I think this situation is somewhat exceptionally risky, given the (according to the testimony of the group) irregular and fairly frequent checks they were doing. It just doesn't seem logical that someone who is good enough at planning to escape completely undetected, leaving no evidence, and not caught after all these years would take such a high-risk approach. Most of the other abductors who did these risky situations were caught, often very soon after.
You keep claiming that there is not a shred of evidence that the McCanns were involved. Behaviour before and after the incident is considered evidence, at least where I live. It is not as strong as, for example, DNA evidence or eye-witness evidence, but it is evidence. Take the Scott Peterson case, for example. There is no physical evidence in that case, but his behaviour (his affair, his lying, etc.) was enough to convict him of murder.
I do think the timelines allow for various options. You suggested it was not possible for her body to be taken to the ocean prior to dinner (although I am not entirely clear why not). Maybe she was hidden in the apartment of one of the others, since they all apparently left the doors unlocked, and moved later. I still think she ended up in the ocean and that's why her body was never found.
My impression of Gerry is that he would make decisions quickly, that Kate would follow his decision, and that he has the ability to hide his emotions and appear cool and relaxed. I saw the video of him laughing and joking just days after Madeleine was, as he says, abducted. That is so different from the behaviour of others I've known who lost children that it makes me highly suspicious. And there are many other killers who we know were very capable of acting perfectly calm and relaxed within minutes of killing. I've posted before about Paul and Karla Bernardo who left the body of a teenage girl in their home while they went to enjoy Easter dinner with their families. Nobody suspected a thing.
I don't think there was a need to conspire with their dinner companions (unless, perhaps, they hid her body in one apartment. I imagine they would choose their closest friend for that and get his help). I think the others simply didn't suspect that their friends might be involved - who would?
However, some of their behaviours are a bit odd as well. I am puzzled by their immediately sitting down to create a timeline of who was where and what time they did checks. Why on earth would that matter? My only thought is that perhaps the McCanns urged them to do that, hoping to strengthen their story.
You asked in an earlier post about motive. I think if we understood the motive, we would have the solution to this mystery. The McCann's suggestion that she was taken by someone who wanted a child to raise as their own seems ridiculous to me, as I have said before. With that motive, it would make far more sense to take one of the twins, who were younger, less easily identified and not likely to remember their parents or be able to talk about them. The most likely motivation if she was abducted is sexual.
If the McCann's were involved, there are a number of possible motives - we just don't know. It could be that the McCanns did something to cause her death, intentionally or not. It could be that she died accidentally but they were concerned that something they wanted to keep hidden would be discovered if her body was examined (such as drugs, sexual abuse, ?). It's even possible that she died accidentally while left alone in the apartment and they panicked, thinking they'd be blamed for having left the children alone (and rightly so) and decided to cover it up.
What makes this case so difficult is that we really have very little physical evidence of either an intruder or of parental involvement. You feel strongly that it was an intruder, a stranger, but really have nothing to prove that. Others look at the behaviour of the parents: leaving the children alone (which, while apparently not illegal, shows a certain detachment from them); not being concerned when told that Madeleine cried when left alone previously (again, a lack of concern for the children); leaving the twins alone in the apartment after finding Madeleine missing and running all the way back to the restaurant to alert the others; the twins not waking up despite the commotion and the parents not immediately insisting on having them tested for drugs; the confusing and changing story about the "jemmied" blinds and window; Kate not physically searching for Madeleine; making long-term plans for events on the anniversary of her abduction (suggesting they knew very well that she wouldn't come back); Gerry joking and making his friends laugh a few days later; leaving the twins in the creche in the days that followed (again, the parents I've known who lost children could hardly bear to be separated from their other children for a very long time - and here there was no need); the video of them on a talk show where they are sad and concerned while answering questions, then as soon as the show ends (with camera still running) they get up laughing and cheerful; and so on. There's more.
I don't know what actually happened, obviously, and I have not steeped myself in every detail of this case. But I do think there are valid reasons to be suspicious of the parents.
Tink
