Madeleine McCann found?

[Donjeta]

In that case anyone who says they are guilty has to prove it, but notice that never happens.

The fact is no one has provided a theory as to how and why the mccanns covered up the death of their eldest child. Why would they cover up her death, there is no evidence of a motive and it was the McCann's who first suggested sedation by an abductor but there has been no evidence of this, no one saw anything, and once they were at dinner there was no opportunity to dispose of a body. When forensics were carried out nothing was found, no excessive cleaning, no blood, no expulsion of bodily fluids. The idea that in such a short space of time Madeleine died, and her parents decided to dump her like a piece of rubbish then go out to dinner as normal then campaign for the case to be reopened is just not credible. The fact that both the attorney general of Portugal said there was NO evidence against the mccanns and Scotland yard say they are not suspects should give people pause for thought instead of howling that Scotland yard is wrong, speaking in code, part of a conspiracy etc.

If someone says something is a fact then they have to prove it. People don't have t prove opinions as long as they state it as their opinion.
For example, now, you have taken the burden to prove that no one has provded a theory as to how and why the mccanns covered up the death of their eldest child. Is there a link to prove that?

JMO but proving statements that start no one has ever is a little tricky. It involves reading and listening to everything under the sun and showing that none of that exists. And imo it's a little odd that you would say that after you've spent so much time arguing against many of these theories that don't exist... Just because you don't believe them or they may not be what actually happened does not mean no one ever said anything.

JMO2: saying something is a fact when it's an opinion does not make one's opinions count more than anyone else's, it just makes others more likely to argue.

JMO 3 : I am not a fan of attempted proofs that are based on I don't think it's credible. Again, it's an opinion, not a fact. A lot of incredible things have happened as we are not all cut from the same cloth. There have been killers who went out for a pizza cool as a cucumber or partied afterwards as if nothing had happened, and I have come to the conclusion that the things that I would or wouldn't do are not a measure of what murderers may do, because first of all if I wouldn't murder anyone and they're willing to they're clearly not like me in many important respects.

Not all methods of dying involve blood, lots of cleaning or expulsion of bodily fluids.

And since your explanation to the cadaver dogs alerting is that they alerted to blood and bodily fluids it seems contrary to say there weren't any.

 

[brit1981]

If someone says something is a fact then they have to prove it. People don't have t prove opinions as long as they state it as their opinion.
For example, now, you have taken the burden to prove that no one has provded a theory as to how and why the mccanns covered up the death of their eldest child. Is there a link to prove that?

JMO but proving statements that start no one has ever is a little tricky. It involves reading and listening to everything under the sun and showing that none of that exists. And imo it's a little odd that you would say that after you've spent so much time arguing against many of these theories that don't exist... Just because you don't believe them or they may not be what actually happened does not mean no one ever said anything.

JMO2: saying something is a fact when it's an opinion does not make one's opinions count more than anyone else's, it just makes others more likely to argue.

JMO 3 : I am not a fan of attempted proofs that are based on I don't think it's credible. Again, it's an opinion, not a fact. A lot of incredible things have happened as we are not all cut from the same cloth. There have been killers who went out for a pizza cool as a cucumber or partied afterwards as if nothing had happened, and I have come to the conclusion that the things that I would or wouldn't do are not a measure of what murderers may do, because first of all if I wouldn't murder anyone and they're willing to they're clearly not like me in many important respects.

Not all methods of dying involve blood, lots of cleaning or expulsion of bodily fluids.

And since your explanation to the cadaver dogs alerting is that they alerted to blood and bodily fluids it seems contrary to say there weren't any.

Actually by law in the UK you cannot just put in my opinion onto the end of a statement and get away with it. An opinion is an opinion, a statement is a statement regardless of whether IMO is tacked on. If anything is published that a reasonable person would infer something that is untrue or defamatory then it is libel, and possibly contempt of court, harassment and even interfering with witnesses if the investigation is ongoing. Tony Bennett found this in court, and now has a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court.

And the dog alerts are meaningless without evidence to back them up theory are not evidence. There were tiny amounts of human material found at alert sites but firstly the police only took samples from alert sites, and secondly these were miniscule and some were found to come from the living.

People entered the flat at just after ten, not one person has reported smelling bodily fluids such as urine, vomit or faeces now did they report smelling cleaning products.

 

[UKgirl]

Have you thought about contacting Scotland yard with this opinion, as they have stated she is not a suspect. She did not have motive or opportunity to cover up a death and she has campaigned to have the case investigated by police after it was shelved.

And it is for the courts to state guilty or not, but not innocence. Innocence is automatic unless proven guilty. So as the McCann's have never been found guilty, have never been charged, have the attorney generals saying there is no evidence against them, Scotland yard saying they are not suspects it is a fact they are innocent. The only people who think they are guilty are conspiracy theorists on the internet

She didnt need a motive, an accidential death IMO is the key to this case. There was ample opportunity to cover up just as their was apparently ample opportunity for an abduction. Its not a fact that they are innocent, there is a big difference in not being able to tie them to madelines disapperance and claiming that they are 100% innocent. I still believe what i believe and until proven otherwise, I will still believe that the Mccanns are caught up in this somehow.

 

[Donjeta]

Actually by law in the UK you cannot just put in my opinion onto the end of a statement and get away with it. An opinion is an opinion, a statement is a statement regardless of whether IMO is tacked on. If anything is published that a reasonable person would infer something that is untrue or defamatory then it is libel, and possibly contempt of court, harassment and even interfering with witnesses if the investigation is ongoing. Tony Bennett found this in court, and now has a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court.

And the dog alerts are meaningless without evidence to back them up theory are not evidence. There were tiny amounts of human material found at alert sites but firstly the police only took samples from alert sites, and secondly these were miniscule and some were found to come from the living.

People entered the flat at just after ten, not one person has reported smelling bodily fluids such as urine, vomit or faeces now did they report smelling cleaning products.

You are changing the subject. This is Websleuths, not an UK court, and what we were talking about was the general custom that the Websleuths rules require that you prove your statements of fact but are allowed more latitude to have opinions (within the other guidelines).

Libel is a totally separate issue. Not all opinions are libel, and I'm not even sure why UK courts would have any jurisdiction over international posters who post on an US based site.

There have been loads of people dying without anyone reporting smelling faeces, vomit or cleaning products and if she died she might not even have died in the apartment so I'm not sure what this has to do with proving anything.

Furthermore, if the police only took a few samples from the sites where the useless dogs alerted then it follows that we cannot say for a fact that there were no bodily fluids or cleaning products in other places that weren't sampled.

Because you see, we would actually have to trust the dogs in order to rule anything out on the basis of them not alerting, and you've told us repeatedly that you don't think they were properly trained and certified.

 

[Clutchbag]

And the dog alerts are meaningless without evidence to back them up theory are not evidence. There were tiny amounts of human material found at alert sites but firstly the police only took samples from alert sites, and secondly these were miniscule and some were found to come from the living.

Some of them were found to come from living people? Which ones? And which living people?

 

[brit1981]

Some of them were found to come from living people? Which ones? And which living people?

Gerry McCann from the fob. The dog never alerted to the site where the 37 marker DNA was found.

 

[brit1981]

You are changing the subject. This is Websleuths, not an UK court, and what we were talking about was the general custom that the Websleuths rules require that you prove your statements of fact but are allowed more latitude to have opinions (within the other guidelines).

Libel is a totally separate issue. Not all opinions are libel, and I'm not even sure why UK courts would have any jurisdiction over international posters who post on an US based site.

There have been loads of people dying without anyone reporting smelling faeces, vomit or cleaning products and if she died she might not even have died in the apartment so I'm not sure what this has to do with proving anything.

Furthermore, if the police only took a few samples from the sites where the useless dogs alerted then it follows that we cannot say for a fact that there were no bodily fluids or cleaning products in other places that weren't sampled.

Because you see, we would actually have to trust the dogs in order to rule anything out on the basis of them not alerting, and you've told us repeatedly that you don't think they were properly trained and certified.

First about the legal issues. The UK has jurisdiction over all material published in UK, websites viewable in UK ate considered published in UK. Hence Google and Facebook can be forced to hand over IPS, or face action themselves. More importantly this is now ASN ongoing investigation so contempt of court which is a criminal offence comes into play. In the yeates case the media were prosecuted for writing untrue things and "speculation" about a man questioned even though he never went to court. Therefore it is legally possible that anyone doing this on the internet can be prosecuted or the hosting sites prosecuted. Unlikely though tbh. Quiet interesting area of law though.

As for the McCann case, you cannot just accuse on the basis material was not proven to be there, you could say that about anyone in pdl. The fact us nothing was found in the initial luminol style tests, no blood stains, no one reported smelling cleaning products so unlikely blood spilt, no time to hide a body, and no reason for tanner or payne to aid covering up a chids death.

The McCann's raised the alarm early and had the flat filled with people and spent the next few months surrounded by people including the media, not exactly the ideal situation for carrying a dead body around in. And why cover up an accident as they do happen, and given the time limitations once at dinner any accident had to be when they were there

 

[Clutchbag]

Gerry McCann from the fob. The dog never alerted to the site where the 37 marker DNA was found.

How is some of them were found to be from living people equivalent to your saying it was Gerrys, dont you know the difference between singular and plural?

And no, no one in the FSS said it WAS Gerrys blood, just that some markers matched, in the same way theysaid some of Madeleines markers matched, but oh no, that couldnt havebeen Madeleinea blood according to you

 

[Clutchbag]

First about the legal issues. The UK has jurisdiction over all material published in UK, websites viewable in UK ate considered published in UK. Hence Google and Facebook can be forced to hand over IPS, or face action themselves. More importantly this is now ASN ongoing investigation so contempt of court which is a criminal offence comes into play. In the yeates case the media were prosecuted for writing untrue things and "speculation" about a man questioned even though he never went to court. Therefore it is legally possible that anyone doing this on the internet can be prosecuted or the hosting sites prosecuted. Unlikely though tbh. Quiet interesting area of law though.

As for the McCann case, you cannot just accuse on the basis material was not proven to be there, you could say that about anyone in pdl. The fact us nothing was found in the initial luminol style tests, no blood stains, no one reported smelling cleaning products so unlikely blood spilt, no time to hide a body, and no reason for tanner or payne to aid covering up a chids death.

The McCann's raised the alarm early and had the flat filled with people and spent the next few months surrounded by people including the media, not exactly the ideal situation for carrying a dead body around in. And why cover up an accident as they do happen, and given the time limitations once at dinner any accident had to be when they were there

heard it all now LOL, and no, the mccanns did not call police until 3/4 hours later,its in the police files, call was made at 22 41, although theywere SURE she had been abducted at 2200 lots of time for abductor to get away!!!! so no the mccanns calling the police straight away is a lie
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P11/11_VOLUME_XIa_Page_3051.jpg

and yea, there were alot of people in the mccanns flat, that THEY let in, thereby trashing the crime scene, an hour before the police had a chance to get there!! Allowing them all to tamper with it whilst Gerry also went on tamper with it when he and the friends he let stick their paws all over the outside window blinds which is the entrance and exit they thought the abductor had used! And why? before he went to search for his kid he was trying to found out if you could get in from outside by raising the blinds? Why was that so important right then? Why was he doing the polices jobbefore he even called them????

And less of the veiled intimidation thanks vis a vis internet postingfacebook and possibly getting fined going to prison,etc sheesh, anyone reading might think you want to shut everyone up, well its never gonna happen luv

 

[SapphireSteel]

heard it all now LOL, and no, the mccanns did not call police until 3/4 hours later,its in the police files, call was made at 22 41, although theywere SURE she had been abducted at 2200 lots of time for abductor to get away!!!! so no the mccanns calling the police straight away is a lie
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P11/11_VOLUME_XIa_Page_3051.jpg

and yea, there were alot of people in the mccanns flat, that THEY let in, thereby trashing the crime scene, an hour before the police had a chance to get there!! Allowing them all to tamper with it whilst Gerry also went on tamper with it when he and the friends he let stick their paws all over the outside window blinds which is the entrance and exit they thought the abductor had used! And why? before he went to search for his kid he was trying to found out if you could get in from outside by raising the blinds? Why was that so important right then? Why was he doing the polices jobbefore he even called them????

And less of the veiled intimidation thanks vis a vis internet postingfacebook and possibly getting fined going to prison,etc sheesh, anyone reading might think you want to shut everyone up, well its never gonna happen luv

The absolute last thing I would be doing if my baby was missing, would be to worry about how she got out.

The McCanns not only had a theory on her disappearance, (they've taken her!) they also had time to ponder and assess how "they" got in and out.

All while their baby is in the cold and dark somewhere nearby, either alone or with an abductor.

It just doesn't make sense, any of it, not least that Kate did not look for Madeleine or call her name, not once.

That is beyond bizarre. If you lose your dog, you call for it. Your cat, ditto. Why did Kate not call for Madeleine, her first born, or even search for her?

This is inexplicable to me, as a mother.

:cow:

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

MM's dad swims for charity

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3333196

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

Breaking headline news on HLN!


One of the largest child trafficking rings has been busted in the USA FBI just announcing!

It's amazing!

Maybe MM is one of those kids!! Just got this news. I promise to update. Sounded like they said 105 kids saved!

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/214044-police-find-105-children-in-sex-trafficking-bust/

Update: doesn't seem to be any connection to MM, but this new news is great none the less. May it give us more hope for MM's case!

 

[dotr]

Breaking headline news on HLN!


One of the largest child trafficking rings has been busted in the USA FBI just announcing!

It's amazing!

Maybe MM is one of those kids!! Just got this news. I promise to update. Sounded like they said 105 kids saved!

http://m.*************.com/n3/214044-police-find-105-children-in-sex-trafficking-bust/

Update: doesn't seem to be any connection to MM, but this new news is great none the less. May it give us more hope for MM's case!

Thanks for posting that link!
Will also post on Ws. trafficking page.

SPOTLIGHT CASE Human Trafficking Awareness Thread - Page 11 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

A little more info.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...ide-operation-targeting-underage-prostitution

 

[SapphireSteel]

Breaking headline news on HLN!


One of the largest child trafficking rings has been busted in the USA FBI just announcing!

It's amazing!

Maybe MM is one of those kids!! Just got this news. I promise to update. Sounded like they said 105 kids saved!

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/214044-police-find-105-children-in-sex-trafficking-bust/

Update: doesn't seem to be any connection to MM, but this new news is great none the less. May it give us more hope for MM's case!

That is amazing news, I'm so glad this investigation is ongoing. I hope they hunt down every single "customer" and throw them in jail for life, too.

What is of interest to me is - how many of those trafficked children were abducted from their families, either from their bedrooms or from a holiday resort?

The wording of the article implies to me that most of these kids were pimped out by their "carers" for lack of a better word, not stolen from good families then sold into prostitution.

 

[Donjeta]

First about the legal issues. The UK has jurisdiction over all material published in UK, websites viewable in UK ate considered published in UK. Hence Google and Facebook can be forced to hand over IPS, or face action themselves. More importantly this is now ASN ongoing investigation so contempt of court which is a criminal offence comes into play. In the yeates case the media were prosecuted for writing untrue things and "speculation" about a man questioned even though he never went to court. Therefore it is legally possible that anyone doing this on the internet can be prosecuted or the hosting sites prosecuted. Unlikely though tbh. Quiet interesting area of law though.

As for the McCann case, you cannot just accuse on the basis material was not proven to be there, you could say that about anyone in pdl. The fact us nothing was found in the initial luminol style tests, no blood stains, no one reported smelling cleaning products so unlikely blood spilt, no time to hide a body, and no reason for tanner or payne to aid covering up a chids death.

The McCann's raised the alarm early and had the flat filled with people and spent the next few months surrounded by people including the media, not exactly the ideal situation for carrying a dead body around in. And why cover up an accident as they do happen, and given the time limitations once at dinner any accident had to be when they were there

Interesting. Can you please link us to some legal cases in which people who are not from or in the UK were tried in the UK for things that they said on non-UK websites? I presume that websites that are viewable in the UK basically means all of the internet so this must happen a lot.

I know the British had an empire and considered themselves the rulers of half of the world at one time but I thought those days were long gone. It seems rather arrogant to presume one country can have jurisdiction over the whole world wide web. It would hardly seem fair and practical to prosecute people over contempt of court over legal decisions in some random foreign country that they may have never been in and when it's rather likely that they have never even had the chance to have heard of those court orders.

I'm getting worried about North Korea deciding they have the jurisdiction over all of the internet and suing me... I've said some unkind things about their political system and I'm pretty sure they have laws about that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Precisely.

The British are trying to close Pandora's Box, with their laws and rulings and Inquiries.

Good luck with that.

 

[Clutchbag]

Interesting. Can you please link us to some legal cases in which people who are not from or in the UK were tried in the UK for things that they said on non-UK websites? I presume that websites that are viewable in the UK basically means all of the internet so this must happen a lot.

I know the British had an empire and considered themselves the rulers of half of the world at one time but I thought those days were long gone. It seems rather arrogant to presume one country can have jurisdiction over the whole world wide web. It would hardly seem fair and practical to prosecute people over contempt of court over legal decisions in some random foreign country that they may have never been in and when it's rather likely that they have never even had the chance to have heard of those court orders.

I'm getting worried about North Korea deciding they have the jurisdiction over all of the internet and suing me... I've said some unkind things about their political system and I'm pretty sure they have laws about that.

:floorlaugh:

Spot on

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

That is amazing news, I'm so glad this investigation is ongoing. I hope they hunt down every single "customer" and throw them in jail for life, too.

What is of interest to me is - how many of those trafficked children were abducted from their families, either from their bedrooms or from a holiday resort?

The wording of the article implies to me that most of these kids were pimped out by their "carers" for lack of a better word, not stolen from good families then sold into prostitution.

Yes the majority were girls ranging from 12-16 who were from tough domestic backgrounds leaving them with voids and weaknesses that the pimps filled with fake promises/concern. The girls were mostly from truck stop and seedy hotel prostitution scenarios.

Many of them stay involved in the industry bc they fear leaving their pimps and also they rarely go to LE for help bc they think they will be arrested for prostitution rather than protected.

So sad.

I'm wondering where those suspects in MM's case went? They just poof into thin air? What gives? Too much for me to comprehend there!

 

[Cappuccino]

Interesting. Can you please link us to some legal cases in which people who are not from or in the UK were tried in the UK for things that they said on non-UK websites? I presume that websites that are viewable in the UK basically means all of the internet so this must happen a lot.

I know the British had an empire and considered themselves the rulers of half of the world at one time but I thought those days were long gone. It seems rather arrogant to presume one country can have jurisdiction over the whole world wide web. It would hardly seem fair and practical to prosecute people over contempt of court over legal decisions in some random foreign country that they may have never been in and when it's rather likely that they have never even had the chance to have heard of those court orders.

I'm getting worried about North Korea deciding they have the jurisdiction over all of the internet and suing me... I've said some unkind things about their political system and I'm pretty sure they have laws about that.

Not quite that simple I'm afraid. The British, like every other country, have the right to prevent such things as contempt of court or perversion of the course of justice from happening in their jurisdiction. That's why the Atlantic Wire website was briefly unavailable on this side of the pond last night after publishing material which could prejudice an upcoming trial in the UK.

That's also why facebook and twitter handed over details of UK residents who had breached the anonymity orders passed on the two men convicted of killing James Bulger when they were children, and why two of them (so far) have been prosecuted.

Its also why twitter handed over the details of people who threatened to rape a feminist campaigner to the UK police, and one man (so far) is under arrest.

That's also why Sally Bercow was handed a massive bill for libel after making an ill advised tweet about Lord McAlpine.

The internet is not above the law of any country.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Not quite that simple I'm afraid. The British, like every other country, have the right to prevent such things as contempt of court or perversion of the course of justice from happening in their jurisdiction. That's why the Atlantic Wire website was briefly unavailable on this side of the pond last night after publishing material which could prejudice an upcoming trial in the UK.

That's also why facebook and twitter handed over details of UK residents who had breached the anonymity orders passed on the two men convicted of killing James Bulger when they were children, and why two of them (so far) have been prosecuted.

Its also why twitter handed over the details of people who threatened to rape a feminist campaigner to the UK police, and one man (so far) is under arrest.

That's also why Sally Bercow was handed a massive bill for libel after making an ill advised tweet about Lord McAlpine.

The internet is not above the law of any country.

The examples you quoted were all to do with British subjects.

The rest of us are allowed to say what we like.