Fencesitters & Not Guilty Post Here

[Brefie]

Well, they've discussed what happened to them that night, and that's part of the investigation. I've heard Gerry McCann say that the nights they went out before May 3 are regulated by the secrecy laws, so surely what the McCanns did that night would be too.

Are you saying they lied to the police?

I don't understand why you raise this question?

ETA: Not that you need a reason, but I really think that I missed something.

 

[CaliKid]

I don't understand why you raise this question?

ETA: Not that you need a reason, but I really think that I missed something.

April claimed she's never seen where the McCanns discussed the facts about the case, and I pointed out links to articles showing where they have. The articles are from news sources where information was given about Madeleine and the night she disappeared, either directly from her parents or their families. Unless they lied to the PJ, their statements to the press, written as well as video interviews, should match what was said to the police by the McCanns in the official statement.

 

[Brefie]

Gotcha. Thanks for responding.

 

[philamena]

14 x 4 = 56 not 76.

And weren't there 9 diners? Someone's mother was there?

56 / 9 = 6.2 glasses per person.

Considering the McCann's and their group arrived no earlier than 8.30pm, that would leave the 90 minutes to drink 6.2 glasses of wine. That's a glass of wine every 15 minutes. With all of the getting up and checking, trivia games and eating, I find it very hard to believe that all of this wine was consumed.

Thanks for the math correction.
Figures may have ignorantly been off.....hopefully the meaning of my post was clear.

 

[Brefie]

Thanks for the math correction.
Figures may have ignorantly been off.....hopefully the meaning of my post was clear.

No prob Hope you didn't take offense, I didn't mean any.

I will absolutely agree that 14 bottles seems like an awful lot of wine for 9 people. But I don't think they could have realistically got through them. Not in that time, anyway.

I wonder if it was a situation where the restaurant was going to close and they ordered more than enough, possibly because they were given the option of not opening them.

Having just been on vacation where the bars closed early enough, almost every night we ordered about 3-4 drinks each so we could hang out by the shore. The whole point of the vacation was one long party and the only child among us was safely with her nanny

 

[philamena]

Gosh no! No offense taken at all.

The amount of alcohol they drank that night still blows my mind. Of course I totally agree with the way you handled things on your vacation....sit back and have a few drinks and let the nanny care for the children. Knowing that the McCann's and their friends left children alone at night, blows my mind. I mean they're doctors....they couldn't have been that dumb.

 

[Brefie]

Oh, we don't have any children She is our friend's daughter. 2 more 'on top of it responsible parents' you could not hope to meet.

 

[STEADFAST]

Their looks, body languages, all their interviews, not hardly any tears, just stress out looking, not enough pleading for her return, makes me think they did do it.

I know what you mean, KOOL LOOK. And belive me, it doesn't take much for me to suspect people. But I remember how I (and most of San Diego) suspected Danielle Van Damm's parents because of their demeanor and their story seemed "off." And how many suspected Jessica Lundsford's father. And, well, on and on. Once you start suspecting someone, their every utterance and movement is tinged with significance, even though we all react to things differently and display our reactions differently. For instance, I'm pretty sure I would never, ever break down crying in public, no matter how much grief I felt. That doesn't make me a cold-hearted murderess. In fact, that doesn't mean I feel less emotion than others do. I see so many discussions here starting with a reference to a news story that proves the McCanns are guilty, yet they all end up either being demonstrated to be false or at the least quite misleading. The "100%" DNA match became 80%, and then it was pointed out that percentages are not even how DNA matches are reported. There was a lively discussion about a news story that claimed DNA tests proved Madeleine was drugged -- of course that turned out to be impossible. There was blood in the trunk, then it was body fluid, then it was hair. Mr. Mcann saying that they gave the children Calpol (Tylenol) became they were routinely drugging the children with sedatives. A report (unsubstanciated) that the tapas group drank 14 bottles of wine became set in stone and then morphed into they were swingers. Nothing at all has panned out yet because everything is getting exaggerated and twisted. I think people are being yanked around by the press, possibly with the help of some in Portugal LE. It really is frightening me.

 

[BloodshotEye]

Steadfast, I think you raise some very important points. And it is with your caution, and that of other people her such as Wudge, that will hold everyone to a pretty high standard, so to speak.

And likewise, when this evidence (or dossier ?), is presented in whatever legal venue is appropriate, there will no doubt, be scientists and investigators who will invalidate any conclusion that is not based on reliable (% liklihood, or whatever standard) methods of investigation, sample collection, chains of custody, analytical methods, and the like.

So...although we will continue to post our theories and speculation, we all know it is just that. Speculation. And ultimately, there is a very high standard for admissibility of evidence.

Keep up the good work, Steadfast. You'll keep us searching for the real evidence, and the legitimate quotes from reliable witnesses ;]

 

[STEADFAST]

Steadfast, I think you raise some very important points. And it is with your caution, and that of other people her such as Wudge, that will hold everyone to a pretty high standard, so to speak.

And likewise, when this evidence (or dossier ?), is presented in whatever legal venue is appropriate, there will no doubt, be scientists and investigators who will invalidate any conclusion that is not based on reliable (% liklihood, or whatever standard) methods of investigation, sample collection, chains of custody, analytical methods, and the like.

So...although we will continue to post our theories and speculation, we all know it is just that. Speculation. And ultimately, there is a very high standard for admissibility of evidence.

Keep up the good work, Steadfast. You'll keep us searching for the real evidence, and the legitimate quotes from reliable witnesses ;]

You're sweet, BloodshotEye! You know what frightens me the most of anything? That I agree with Wudge. How did the day ever come that I would find Wudge so reasonable? But I do.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

You're sweet, BloodshotEye! You know what frightens me the most of anything? That I agree with Wudge. How did the day ever come that I would find Wudge so reasonable? But I do.

We all love Wudge!! However, since he never thinks anyone is guilty of anything, he's GOT to be right at least once!!! LOL

(kidding Wudge - don't yell at me)!!!!

 

[april4sky]

Well, they've discussed what happened to them that night, and that's part of the investigation. I've heard Gerry McCann say that the nights they went out before May 3 are regulated by the secrecy laws, so surely what the McCanns did that night would be too.

Are you saying they lied to the police?

No, but I am saying they have not and can not discuss the details of the statements they have made to the police.

 

[april4sky]

Joana Cipriano vanished from a village just seven miles from Praia da Luz, where Madeleine disappeared.
Neither body has been found.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1283987,00.html

 

[Texana]

And Joana's uncle confessed to her murder. She was an emotionally abused child who quite probably was being sexually abused as well.

http://portugalresident.com/portugalresident/showstory.asp?ID=10046

However, someone close to Maddie might have vaguely remembered that "a little girl disappeared" not too far away, and thought perhaps that covering up Maddie's death as an abduction would be plausible.

 

[KOOL LOOK]

I know what you mean, KOOL LOOK. And belive me, it doesn't take much for me to suspect people. But I remember how I (and most of San Diego) suspected Danielle Van Damm's parents because of their demeanor and their story seemed "off." And how many suspected Jessica Lundsford's father. And, well, on and on. Once you start suspecting someone, their every utterance and movement is tinged with significance, even though we all react to things differently and display our reactions differently. For instance, I'm pretty sure I would never, ever break down crying in public, no matter how much grief I felt. That doesn't make me a cold-hearted murderess. In fact, that doesn't mean I feel less emotion than others do. I see so many discussions here starting with a reference to a news story that proves the McCanns are guilty, yet they all end up either being demonstrated to be false or at the least quite misleading. The "100%" DNA match became 80%, and then it was pointed out that percentages are not even how DNA matches are reported. There was a lively discussion about a news story that claimed DNA tests proved Madeleine was drugged -- of course that turned out to be impossible. There was blood in the trunk, then it was body fluid, then it was hair. Mr. Mcann saying that they gave the children Calpol (Tylenol) became they were routinely drugging the children with sedatives. A report (unsubstanciated) that the tapas group drank 14 bottles of wine became set in stone and then morphed into they were swingers. Nothing at all has panned out yet because everything is getting exaggerated and twisted. I think people are being yanked around by the press, possibly with the help of some in Portugal LE. It really is frightening me.

Great post and I agree, to a certain extent. But The Vandam weren't suspected other than the initial onset of the investigation as was mark lunsford, which is accepted and customary. The Vandams big stink was the marijuana and swinging which they so admirably confessed and admitted to right from get jump street. They got all their junk in the trunk out there in order to keep it on Danielle. I hope no one would disagree with me on that. Also, her parents looked like pure hell. They weren't out romping , tanning touring, getting rich and living lifestyles of the rich and famous.

Mark, was never suspected in the public in my opinion. He wept, pled, cried like a baby day after day. He couldn't even speak in most of his first initial interviews. You could see trauma and devastation in these two cases. Even Elizabeth Smarts.

Even though her parents are very well put together, their pain was obvious. Too many tender gulping moments in front of the camera.

Many have brought up, can'[t remember the convicts name who eventually died and was initially suspected of Elizabeth's abduction. Now, in prespective, they had a good acceptable reason to suspect this man. He had all the indicators, opportunity, criminal background, familiarity with the house and family etc. But we all know the police was in an ego power control play in that case. The ones I should pin point who were suppose to be in charge.

I don't see portugal police doing that. I see them doing a heck of a job, considering all that is going on.

I know there's been brought up rumor after rumor, but we see it's materializing too. The social workers did visit, Kate didn't answer all the questions in her 11 hour interview, why? What possible reason could she have to not answer. If she didn't have an answer, she could have replied I don't know. I have no answer to this question. Her problemed interview is she wouldn't answer certain questions.

Come on everyone, all the classic typical criminal behaviors are unfolding right in front of our eyes. Yes, lets give them innocent until proven guilty, but we can't be duped either. Their doing everything two guilty people do. NOt two grieving hurting devastated parents of an abducted girl.


This just crossed my mind as I was typing:

Could someone who knew the young babes, and this is an accurate identification, have gotten angry of the constant night after night of the kids being left alone and took her because they felt the parents were in the wrong, neglectful, irresponsible and didn't deserve their children? Especially if they did witness or hear about the cryings, the constant traffic in and out of the apartment, may have even enterred the bar and witnessed the partying?

Could a normal non criminal mind have justified this taking of Maddy?

 

[april4sky]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=461111&in_page_id=1770

The Capriano case may not be as cut and dried ar it appears.

Goncalo Amaral is one of five officers accused over the beating of Leonor Cipriano

 

[kittykat1]

I am on the NG side. And, I would like to add some other things to this post in response to others who made comments on this thread, "Fencesitters and NG Post Here".

The McCann's have been consistent and have not been caught in any lies. I think the PJ is desperate to make an arrest and that much of the "evidence" has been planted. If there is SO MUCH "evidence" that points to the McCann's guilt, arrest them already! The McCann's were photographed with their children at the park and Gerry and Kate were smiling. C'mon! Are they suppose to be frowny-faced forever? They have two children who need them and they're entitled to smile. I remember when Mr. and Mrs. Keesee were on tv looking for their daughter, they tried to remain positive, though it was obvious they were/are distressed. I see the same thing happening with the McCann's.

I find this article very interesting by Clint Van Zandt http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20726999
Rumor vs. evidence in Madeleine McCann case

Did the Portuguese police botch the investigation or are the parents guilty?


Here is a copy of my post #149 from the thread "Damning Proof Found".

If the McCanns were being so closely watched, how could they have gotten away with this? I haven't read this whole thread yet, so the answers to some of these questions may be here.

1. If the Brit cadaver dogs are so remarkable, why can't they locate a) the temporary "hiding" place of Madeleine's body and b) where the body is laid to rest?

2. I understand the roads near the church the family prayed at will be dug up. What is the point if they were being so closely watched?

3. Highly unlikely, but possible the rental car was rented by the actual abductor (not being the McCann's) and now I firmly believe this was planted evidence.

4. First I read the bodily fluids were 80%, what about the other 20%?

5. If the PJ is trying to frame the McCanns, perhaps this is what happened. Though it may be far fetched, here is my idea. The dogs are given a scent to pick up on. Supposedly, they are given a cadaver scent. Who is to say they weren't just given the scent of Madeleine? And that the PJ is being untruthful and just saying they were given the cadaver scent? again, another possibility of planted evidence.

6. Perhaps many of the forensics are made up. Money talks.

7. I just cannot believe these parents had anything to do with their child's disappearance.

8. Sadly, I do not think Madeleine will be found alive.

So far, I see no "evidence" only finger pointing.

 

[KOOL LOOK]

KittyKat, that's what this thread is for to let those in your position weigh in and be accepted.

Reading your post, I feel Clint on the very few clips I've seen him do, appears to be straight up.

But, I don't feel police are planting evidence. They didn't ask for this. They to their own demise, didn't even go to the lengths they should have in the first 24 hours of this investigation. I don't see rush to judgement or planting of evidence. Corroborating evidence normally accompanies other behaviors and evidence. If I was to believe the planting theory, there would have to be more corroboration, an over zealous cop, something.

80% dna match? 80% is darn good for me considering maddy was in a country where she wasn't the norm ethnic group. If I was falsely accussed of the disappearance of my child, I don't give a hootin nanny hell what laws protugal has. I would be declaring my innocense, disputing everything on the tv and media, you wouldn't be able to get me to shut up if it was my child.


Throw me in jail, if my child was missing, and this was totally pointing at me, Heaven, Hell and this Earth would be trembling. You would be sitting back on this forum typing, Kool Look, didn't have anything to do with her childs abduction. You would never see an ocean large enough to compare to the tears that would flow from my eyes.

Keep posting, your ideas make sense to me.

 

[april4sky]

I realise that any court case would take place in Portugal and not the UK. And rightly so.

But I think the points made about the preserving of a crime scene is crucial. And it has certainly not happened in this case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=481683&in_page_id=1811



The source said: "The forensic evidence the Portuguese have is very flaky. The preservation of the crime scenes carried out by the Portuguese police was very poor - every man and his dog has been to the crime scene at the apartment, and used the McCanns' hire car. "It means it's very hard to pin down where any fluids or other sources of DNA came from in the first place. And as for Madeleine's hair being found in the hire car - well, of course it could be. Hair stays around for ages, and sticks to clothes. So Madeleine's hair has been found in the boot? So what?"

 

[AfterMidnight]

What bothers me about this case is the lack of hard evidence, or statements by the police. All we get are news items (from sources close, yada, yada). Most of it seems sensationalized, more to sell papers than get at the truth. I wonder if Portugal makes a habit of trying people in the media?

I'm not sure what to make of the McCanns, although every person reacts differently and we cannot compare their actions to the ones we might take - the ones we HOPE or THINK we might take. They do seem cold, but I believe I would act the same way. I'm used to keeping my emotions in check. I don't believe in public displays and I'm horrified when I see tv pictures of a grieving parent. I believe there should be some privacy.

I further believe a "sleuth" is one who ferrets out the truth, who investigates, not condemns without solid proof. Sherlock Holmes dealt in facts, not judgment, let the chips fall where they may. I think the more emotion and condemnation that's heaped upon the McCanns, the more entrenched I become. Yeah, if there was a smoking gun, I'd change my tune soon enough. But I've seen no smoking gun. I've seen nothing but half-baked newspaper articles and people quick to raise their own perceived parental perfections at the expense of the McCanns.

If the McCanns are guilty of Maddie's demise, they must be held responsible. But, there must be PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt, not inuendo beyond reasonable belief.

End of rant!