Madeleine McCann found?

[OneLove]

There was never any proof that The McCanns harmed their daughter. y.

Likewise, there was never any proof that The McCanns did NOT harm their daughter.

To leap from either of these statements to "She was abducted" would lead a rational person with a functioning brain to believe that the person making that statement was actually there when it happened.

Is this true? Were you in the room when she was "abducted"?

 

[Sabot]

Likewise, there was never any proof that The McCanns did NOT harm their daughter.

To leap from either of these statements to "She was abducted" would lead a rational person with a functioning brain to believe that the person making that statement was actually there when it happened.

Is this true? Were you in the room when she was "abducted"?

Take it to a Court of Law. And then let's see how far you get.

Oh Sorry, I forgot. The whole World is IN IT. Absolutely everyone is covering for a couple of middle class Doctors who must have some horrendous secret that would bring down The Governments of several Countries.
Is this what you believe?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Take it to a Court of Law. And then let's see how far you get.

Oh Sorry, I forgot. The whole World is IN IT. Absolutely everyone is covering for a couple of middle class Doctors who must have some horrendous secret that would bring down The Governments of several Countries.
Is this what you believe?

Makes more sense than blaming a "well-organised" abductor who entered an unlocked door yet felt compelled to exit through a locked window (complete with sleeping child) while adults were roaming constantly through the resort "checking" their children.

It also explains the cadaver scent in 5a.

It also explains why Martin Smith later identified the man he saw carrying a sleeping child as Gerry McCann.

It also explains why Jane Tanner allegedly saw the man carrying the child, yet failed to recognise the child as Madeline, mid "abduction".

 

[LucyOso]

This is not true.

The media and the British Government support the McCanns, but Joe Bloggs in the street does not.

The reason? Because the McCanns were wealthy doctors, on a wonderful holiday, and they neglected their children.People can not get past that fact. The McCanns have vocal support, and the best PR money can buy, but despite this the majority of the public DOES NOT support them.

All you need to do is read the comment section of any McCann article on major news site, and you will see overwhelmingly that even those who give credance to the abduction theory are very unsupportive of the McCanns themselves.

They are still perceived as careless, neglectful parents, and always will be, because it is fact. They were careless, and they did neglect their children.

BBM. Here is some information on what doctors make around the world. We can't compare US doctors salaries with those in the UK and abroad. I do not think this has any relevance. You have to look at purchasing-power parity and many other socio-economic variables before assuming being a doctor is equal to wealth.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/

http://www.practicelink.com/magazine/vital-stats/physician-compensation-worldwide/

 

[brit1981]

A locum GP woring two days a week, and a hospitol doctor with no private practice woudl not be considered wealthy. Mark warner resorts are not exactly luxury holidays.

I would also like to point out that in the UK the vast majority do support them. there is a rather vocal and vile minority that stir up trouble, but these are regarded just as the tin foil hat brigade in the UK (they seem to see conspiracies everywhere, and have come up with a theory that everyone from the government down is in on it).

Martin Smith never identified the man as Gerry McCann. he admitted it was dark and he did not have on his glasses, but said he thought the way he turned his face reminded him of Gerry Mccann. the other adults there did not back this up, and lots of people were able to place Gerry at the resort at this time (unless of course all these people at the resort, and Martin Smith's family are also in on it). So we have Smith claiming he is not 100% sure he saw Gerry, versus an entire group of people including mark Warner staff saying they are 100% certain they saw gerry at the resort at this time.

As for the cadaver scent, the dog alerts to bodily fluids (unless of course Grime sis in it too, and is lying about the fact his dogs alert to bodily fluids).

Jane tanner aslo said she never saw the face of the child, and just assumed it was a person carrying their own child. She said she only noticed it because the child had bare feet, and was being carried in an odd way.

So we have the Portuguese and British governments, the US ambassador, the FSS (which was really a privately owned comapny with no legal rights to examine DNA and links to the McCanns, and as pre 2007 the government was still claming it was an executive agency of the government, and then a government own agency they must have been planning this for years), the police, the british CPS, the Portuguese prosecution service, all of the mccanns friends and relatives, several workers at the mark warner resorts, several private investigative firms all conspiring to cover up the death of a child for an ordinary couple from the north. And the two lights of truth are a former detective with a criminal conviction for fabricating evidence, and a former solicitor with a reputation for targeting people in this way who so far has not been able to back up his claims and is now facing a possible prison term.

 

[BritsKate]

A locum GP woring two days a week, and a hospitol doctor with no private practice woudl not be considered wealthy. Mark warner resorts are not exactly luxury holidays.

I would also like to point out that in the UK the vast majority do support them. there is a rather vocal and vile minority that stir up trouble, but these are regarded just as the tin foil hat brigade in the UK (they seem to see conspiracies everywhere, and have come up with a theory that everyone from the government down is in on it).

Martin Smith never identified the man as Gerry McCann. he admitted it was dar and he did not have on his glasses, but said he thought the way he turned his face remineded him of Gerry Mccann. the other adults there did nto bac this up, and lot sof people were able to place gerry at the resort at this time (unless of course all these people at the resort, and martin Smith's family are also in on it).

I don't personally believe any one of us can speak for the whole of Britain. In my area (West Mids) everyone I have spoken to of this case most assuredly don't 'support' the McCanns. They may not feel the McCann's are complicit in their daughter's disappearance but there are very varied reactions - believing them guilty of neglect; feeling an unfair and overly sympathetic press factors in; etc. Some think they're innocent - others (like myself) have many more questions and just don't know if they're guilty of disappearing Maddie. None have ever admitted to donating to the fund. Some feel Portugal has been unfairly portrayed.

My youngest is in primary still and I've spoken to a lot of other people, mostly parents themselves, about this case. By and far the majority have all expressed some doubt and concern especially in leaving the little ones alone. Strangely though none of them were wearing tin foil hats.

 

[brit1981]

There is a difference to not agreeing with leaving children alone, and thinking there is a giant conspiracy involving governemtns that you see posters both here and on other sites claiming. That is tin foil hat territory.
Most people support them as people who have lost a child. they may not like them or think they were great parents, but they do not think they within a two hour period had their daughter die, refuse to get her help, hide her body (bearing in mind they had no car, no spades, and did not know the area), come bac and change and get ready for dinner, and then as their friends and several mark warner workers to help cover it up. Some of the tapas 9 were not actually good friends of theirs, they ha donly met them once or twice before, and one they had never met before. can you imagine the coversation "hi, before we start ordering our food, we thought we should mention our daughter died. We have hidden her body, and covered it all up, but we thought about staging an abuduction and then an international campaign to find her (after all what we want now is hundreds of journalists following our every move), so who is up for lying for us and helping ?"

What questions do you have?

 

[BritsKate]

There is a difference to not agreeing with leaving children alone, and thinking there is a giant conspiracy involving governemtns that you see posters both here and on other sites claiming. That is tin foil hat territory.
Most people support them as people who have lost a child. they may not like them or think they were great parents, but they do not think they within a two hour period had their daughter die, refuse to get her help, hide her body (bearing in mind they had no car, no spades, and did not know the area), come bac and change and get ready for dinner, and then as their friends and several mark warner workers to help cover it up. Some of the tapas 9 were not actually good friends of theirs, they ha donly met them once or twice before, and one they had never met before. can you imagine the coversation "hi, before we start ordering our food, we thought we should mention our daughter died. We have hidden her body, and covered it all up, but we thought about staging an abuduction and then an international campaign to find her (after all what we want now is hundreds of journalists following our every move), so who is up for lying for us and helping ?"

What questions do you have?

BBM

Many but they cannot be answered by inherent belief in the account given by the McCann's and their friends alone. It appears, as is often the case, that a lot of people form opinions based on the account of those last seen with the victim.

I automatically suspect the last seen account, and the parents, in missing children's cases. Too much of my life spent studying historical and current patterns of filicide. It is more common in the past decade for a parent to harm their child and then claim abduction - even going so far as to enlist aid from unsuspecting media, family, and friends - then ever before. Yes, stranger abductions do occur (though usually with older children). The younger the child the more my personal hinky meter is raised with statistics being what they are.

This case is extremely frustrating due to the inability to locate truly impartial information. It seems every site I visit is either pro or anti McCann and everyone (including media) keeps putting their spin on it.

 

[brit1981]

Even if you think David payne is lying about seeing madeleine at six thirty, mark warner staff said they saw her at six alive and well, and the tapas bar staff vouch for her parents being at dinner at eight thirty. So that is at most a two and a half hour window.

Plenty of the witnesses after madeleine went missing were other guests and hotel staff. Also the "tapas 9" have kept to the same story - it is pretty hard for nine people to keep up the same lie for five years.

the way I look at it is that if the McCanns had hidden madeleine where did they do this? Ignoring Payne's account, she was seen by staff at six, and her parents were seen two and a half hours later. They had no access to car, no-one recalls them buying digging tools, no witnesses recall seeing them walking anywhere during this time, they did not know the area. They also called the police, and had the place crawling with people and sniffer dogs by eleven. Where on earth could they have put her within walking distance, with no spade or anything, that no-one ever found her, not even the search dogs?

Also why hide it, there has never been evidence of sedatives found, the place did not smell of cleaning products or vomit - or at least the police and staff never mentioned it. What on earth happened in those two and a half hours that resulted in madeleine dying, and her parents deciding not to get her help, and then carrying out the staged abduction.

And why would seven other people, not all of whom knew them well, agree to help cover it up? Thin of it this way, if your friend was caught speeding, woudl you agree to lie for them and say you were driving? not liely, yet they got seven people, not all of whom knew them well, to lie about a child's death and not change their story once in five years?

As for the evidence against the Mccanns that was the dogs and FSS findings, but in actual fact if you read the reports it does not amount to anything. the dogs alert to bodily fluids (only keela just alerts to blood), so that could come from anything not just a corpse. And the material that they said could have belonged to madeleine, could just as equally have belonged to her parents (they found a tiny amounts of DNA that came from three to five people, and had 15 of madeleine's 19 components, but these same components would also be found in the dna of her parents, and to a lesser extent other relatives).

 

[Sabot]

Goncalo Amaral, the detective in charge of investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has lost his Defamation Case against Marcos Correia. The Torture of Leonor Cipriano has been confirmed, and Amaral will pay the Costs of This Case.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Goncalo Amaral, the detective in charge of investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has lost his Defamation Case against Marcos Correia. The Torture of Leonor Cipriano has been confirmed, and Amaral will pay the Costs of This Case.

The attempt by the McCanns to force censorship on the final 7500 copies of Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie" have failed.

A judge in Portugal has overturned the original injunction and ordered the immediate return of all copies of the book which Team McCann had attempted to have destroyed.

This does not, however, mean the book is available in the UK. The McCanns have effectively been able to prevent the British Public from being able to read this book as its sale is still banned in the UK.



http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/05/mccann-couple-banned-book-returns-to.html

I find it compelling that the supposedly grieved parents of a missing baby who by their own admission, want publicity for their daughter, are involved so deeply in repeated legal actions to prevent distribution of the only book which so precisely spells out the beliefs and actions of the Portugese police.

This is censorship, no more no less, and as such it has failed. History shows us that censorship is ultimately useless, and reflects more on those attempting to impinge freedom of speech, than it does on those exercising freedom of speech.

 

[dotr]

Perhaps some lessons can be learned from the sad tale of the abduction of Etan Patz in New York.His parents faced scrutiny, but they stuck to their guns and waited for over 3 decades for answers.A recent media blitz resulted in tweaking someone finally to come forward with info. they had kept all those years..
Post 686 John Sands, posted a very good short video of Etan's parents...
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169934&page=28

 

[Sabot]

Amaral's Book was allowed to be returned to bookshops simply because The Appeal Court decided it has not yet been deemed to be Libellous in a Court of Law. The forthcoming Libel Trial in September will decide that.
Meanwhile, Amaral is still awaiting trial for The Torture of Leandro Silva who is the husband of Leonor Cipriano, who definitely was Tortured. Only on this next occasion it is Amaral himself who is accused.

 

[BritsKate]

I don't understand why Etan Patz keeps being used as a comparison to this case. :waitasec: Etan's case, while tragic, has little in common other than the parents being suspect. The parents are nearly always suspect in these cases.

Why? Because predominantly child crime victims know their perpetrator - the younger the child the smaller the pool of possible perpetrators. In theory anyway. There are, of course, anomalies to every crime statistic. (Like Jamie Bulger)

Etan was both older than Madeleine and was walking alone in a public area. Jessica Lunsford; Isabel Celis; Lisa Irwin; Sabrina Aisenberg; Ayla Reynolds; Sierra Newbold; Aaliyah Lunsford; Haleigh Cummings; Sky Metalwala; and Rahma el-Dennaoui are all more closely aligned to the facts of Maddie's case. All were either reportedly abducted from their bedrooms, abducted as toddlers, or both. Sadly there are so many more names that could be added too but those are off the top of my head.

Of the list:
Jessica Lunsford, 9, and Sierra Newbold, 6, were both kidnapped and murdered by sex offenders. Very rarely do we see an 'Elizabeth Smart' scenario in these crimes. The victim is generally assaulted and murdered very quickly.

Lisa (20 months), Aaliyah (3 years), Rahma (19 months), Sky (2 years), Haleigh (5 years); Sabrina (5 months), Ayla (20 months), and Isabel (6 years) have not been located. No charges have been filed in relation to their disappearances. Each child's parent(s) remain suspect at least in the court of public opinion.

This isn't to imply the McCann's either did or did not disappear Maddie but I feel if we're comparing her disappearance to other crimes against children better comparisons are available. MOO and FWIW

 

[brit1981]

I think a "good" comparison is poor little Sophie Hook, who was abducted and murdered in 1995.
She had been sleeping the garden of her uncle's home with her cousins (maybe siblings), and the next morning was found missing. The other children did not hear anything, and the garden was fairly well enclosed. sadly Sophie was found murdered. A man had overheard the children talking about their plans, and crept into the garden at night and taken Sophie, murdered her, and dumped her body on the local beach. It appeared he had been spying on the garden, and listened in to conversations. I wonder how the case would have turned out had she never been found.

 

[brit1981]

here is a murder case of an australian woman in the algarve in 2008. Apparently the pm said she had been killed with multiple blows with an axe, but the PJ said it was suicide. ccording to the report she live din an area where there was drug and child traffiking to north africa, and her family believed she may have seen something. She left a note saying she was going away, she did not now how things would wor out and asking for forgiveness. The PJ said this was a suicide note, but her family do not believe it, and the PM said she was killed by mutilple blows with an axe and had defnesive wounds.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...-portugal-police/story-e6frf92f-1225942731759

As for Amaral,
he has never been cleared of torture, and his criminal conviction still stands. he has lost his case in the criminal courts now, and has been ordered to pay not only the defence costs, but those of the court too. Something which can easily run up into tens of thousands. I cannot speak about Portugal, but in the UK if you lose you will normally have to pay at least some of the winners fees, if you are asked to pay court fees it is normally an indication that you have had no case.
He has failed in overturning his conviction in the torture case, he still has a libel trial case, and an assault case coming up. I also believe he is being chased by the taxman over unpaid taxes and debts. He won his appeal on the book ban, but that was not a decision based on its factuality, just his right to expression, but this is not an defence in libel trials so he could still lose his libel trial.
As far as I am aware the book is not banned in the UK, but it is up to sellers and publishers if they want to help publish and sell it. In the UK publishers and sellers can be held liable for libelous material, and would lose out of the book was found to be libelous and then banned. Also the book ban trial was not a libel trial, so it does not mean if it is ruled the book is libelous the book cannot then be banned. But the court could not maing a ruling then based on the factuality of the book as it was not a libel trial.

 

[Sabot]

Absolutely correct, brit1981. Lifting the ban on the book had nothing to do with Libel. That still has to be proven.

 

[BritsKate]

I think a "good" comparison is poor little Sophie Hook, who was abducted and murdered in 1995.
She had been sleeping the garden of her uncle's home with her cousins (maybe siblings), and the next morning was found missing. The other children did not hear anything, and the garden was fairly well enclosed. sadly Sophie was found murdered. A man had overheard the children talking about their plans, and crept into the garden at night and taken Sophie, murdered her, and dumped her body on the local beach. It appeared he had been spying on the garden, and listened in to conversations. I wonder how the case would have turned out had she never been found.

No "good" example, I understand. Sophie Hook is very similar to many other sexually motivated crimes by strangers. In many cases the perpetrator who abducts from the home is not heard by siblings, parents, and sometimes isn't even alerted to by dogs.

However, again, Sophie is much older than Maddie - as is typical for sexually motivated child homicides. However, sadly, stranger to victim homicides are far rarer for children. Most often children are murdered by those entrusted to protect them.

According to Home Office statistics of 2000-2001 parents were the principal suspects in 78% of child homicides.

 

[brit1981]

In this case I do not think the exact age of sophie was so important (she was seven), so much as the fact she was sleeping nearest the tent door so could be taken easily. According to reports the murderer had claime dhe wanted to kill a four or five year old (what sort of a grown adult has fantasies of hurting a little child).
Whilst stranger abductions are unusual, it is not unusual for someone this young or younger to be attacked (a few years ago a three year old was grabbed from her home and attacked). I suspect the fact they are fewer cases of these ages is simply because they are fewer opportunities to attack children this age if you are a strangers. But a woman in the UK was convicted of sexually abusing several children of this age who wer ein her care at a nursery, so it appears that children of this age are a target for peadophiles.
The reason I thought sophie was similar to madeleine was because she was sleepign away from her parents, and if she had never been found there would have been the same questions raised (but maybe not so much as this was before the internet was popular). Also, the fact that the guy was spying on the famiy and planned the abduction based on opportunity fits with the abduction theory of Madeleine. She was staying in the most secluded flat, her family made no secret of the fact they left her alone and checked every so often, there was a note about this at the tapas restuarant, it would not have been hard for someone to watch for the parents to do a check, go in grab Madeleine and be gone.

The british papers are talking about a little girl who wandered from her own home a few days ago. She was found safe and well playing in a garden a few streets away ninty minutes later, but in those ninty minutes the police were going through the streets in cars, searching private gardens, and had a helicopter looking for her. Its a shame the same was not done for Madeleine.

 

[dotr]

I did not realize that many posts compared EPatz case to this one. Obviously the cases are quite different, other than missing a body, dead or alive. I have failed to make my point, which is that if a case is kept in the news eventually/hopefully someone's conscience will cause them to tell what they know about a crime. In the EP case doing that worked and maybe it will again for MM.