Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?

[Inana]

No, he was "let go" by the McCanns as they stopped looking.
You give the McCann's so much power! The McCann's did not/could not fire him. He was removed from that case by the PJ when his tunnel vision towards the McCann's prevented him from keeping an open mind in investigation. It was his own ego that caused him to retire. He couldn't take the conceived "humiliation."

After swearing they wouldn't, and still with plenty of money in the "Find Madeleine Fund".

They admitted all searching had stopped by the time SY opened their "review".
It was money from the fund that the McCann's paid to private detectives to go through the PJ case files who, after finding leads aplenty, were able to get SY detectives to review them. They had not "stopped searching" in that way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ion-as-police-seek-38-potential-suspects.html

The "evidence" presented by Team McCann is all emotion based, oh yes they were so upset.
The evidence presented by McCann Haters proving they murdered their daughter is imaginary. There is none.
"The archiving of the Process concerning arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code"
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html#adi1

Not one word about actual damages caused in the courtroom. Not one word about "libel" - they can't prove it's libel. :banghead:

The McCanns will not enter a witness box, no matter what. Gerry McCann couldn't even drag himself away to attend.

Kate was actually told not to go, by the British Police. They fear it may stir up more negative publicity which is the last thing they need in Portugal. Negative publicity hurts the search for Madeleine.

Kate obviously didn't care. She went anyway and held her own press conference on the steps. As you do when you are desperate tp find your child. Her statement was about HER, not about Madeleine. As usual. ullhair:

Says it all really. One of them is in love with the media, the other - not so much.

And we will just have to see how the libel trial turns out.

My answers in bold.

My own opinion, except where referenced. :snooty:

 

[Flinders]

The judge excused herself for a "personal problem".

I wonder what sort of personal issue could be so compelling?


:waitasec:

Did you vote for Tony Abbot? It is freaking called leakage in young and old. Julia in menopause... awesome. :seeya:

 

[SapphireSteel]

And we will just have to see how the libel trial turns out.

My answers in bold.

My own opinion, except where referenced. :snooty:

It is a given they will lose.

They cannot prove libel.

:moo:

 

[Clutchbag]

It is a given they will lose.

They cannot prove libel.

:moo:

Its always been a given they will lose and so they should, they have no case

 

[Inana]

It is a given they will lose.

They cannot prove libel.

:moo:

Nothing is ever a slam dunk.
I am sure that Robert Blake actually shot his wife. Acquitted.
I am sure that OJ killed Ron and Nicole. Acquitted.
I am sure Casey A killed little Caylee. Acquitted.

I think they may be able to prove that some things he wrote were untrue, but I haven't made a list. And I don't know what the laws are in Portugal regarding the rights of free speech.

Are you sure they cannot prove libel?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Nothing is ever a slam dunk.
I am sure that Robert Blake actually shot his wife. Acquitted.
I am sure that OJ killed Ron and Nicole. Acquitted.
I am sure Casey A killed little Caylee. Acquitted.

I think they may be able to prove that some things he wrote were untrue, but I haven't made a list. And I don't know what the laws are in Portugal regarding the rights of free speech.

Are you sure they cannot prove libel?

Libel has different standards of "proof" than a criminal trial.

Noun
A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

To win this libel case, the McCanns have to prove two things

1. that the book contained false allegations
2. that those allegations damaged their reputations

First of all, the "false" part - as no one knows what happened to Madeleine, it follows that we do not know what is false and what is not.

As for the reputation part - as Gerry couldn't even attend the trial due to work, I doubt he can prove a "damaged reputation" - he's gone from strength to strength.

Kate was named as a face for a missing person charity - again, hardly a "damaged" reputation.

Note that neither of them are testifying - so all of their claims are second hand, eg "I saw Kate crying at the lies".

This would be hearsay in a criminal trial.

It remains to be seen if their friends and family and employees can prove the book is a lie...but on the surface, it's a folly.

Which could be why the McCanns approached Amaral for an out of court settlement...which he refused.

 

[Inana]

Libel has different standards of "proof" than a criminal trial.

Noun
A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

To win this libel case, the McCanns have to prove two things

1. that the book contained false allegations
2. that those allegations damaged their reputations

First of all, the "false" part - as no one knows what happened to Madeleine, it follows that we do not know what is false and what is not.

As for the reputation part - as Gerry couldn't even attend the trial due to work, I doubt he can prove a "damaged reputation" - he's gone from strength to strength.

Kate was named as a face for a missing person charity - again, hardly a "damaged" reputation.

Note that neither of them are testifying - so all of their claims are second hand, eg "I saw Kate crying at the lies".

This would be hearsay in a criminal trial.

It remains to be seen if their friends and family and employees can prove the book is a lie...but on the surface, it's a folly.

Which could be why the McCanns approached Amaral for an out of court settlement...which he refused.

:seeya: As usual, I disagree with almost all of this. If 200,000 copies of his book have been sold, and read by many more, and it is believed, then that is a definite blow to the reputation. That some people now think that they are child abusers at the least, or sold their child.

But since the McCanns have been cleared by the PJ and SY, maybe that in itself proves that the books contents are false accusations. ? Wouldn't that be the court system working against the PJ officials? I mean like the judge overruling PJ's findings.

I did read somewhere that in Portugal, in a civil case, the litigants are required to try arbitration before a court date is ever set. So the McCanns didn't "approach him," per se. That was probably their request during the arbitration meeting, and of course he would want it all to be dropped. Didn't save the link.

 

[Inana]

But I did find this that I thought was interesting, the law the McCann's are hanging their bonnets on:

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the main article of the Convention dealing with issues of freedom of speech and freedom of association. It says:

“Freedom of expression:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises”.

But that same Article also says: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities”...“These freedoms may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, or for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”.


And it is that last part of Article 10 on which the McCann's rely for their libel claim against Gonçalo Amaral. They say that in exercising his right to freedom of speech, by suggesting that Madeleine died in their holiday apartment, a fact which he says the McCann's must have known, Mr Amaral has at the same time infringed their reputation.

http://goncaloamaral.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4230620-freedom-of-speech-distortion-and-corruption-

 

[SapphireSteel]

But I did find this that I thought was interesting, the law the McCann's are hanging their bonnets on:

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the main article of the Convention dealing with issues of freedom of speech and freedom of association. It says:

“Freedom of expression:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises”.

But that same Article also says: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities”...“These freedoms may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, or for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”.


And it is that last part of Article 10 on which the McCann's rely for their libel claim against Gonçalo Amaral. They say that in exercising his right to freedom of speech, by suggesting that Madeleine died in their holiday apartment, a fact which he says the McCann's must have known, Mr Amaral has at the same time infringed their reputation.

http://goncaloamaral.webs.com/apps/blog/show/4230620-freedom-of-speech-distortion-and-corruption-

If the McCanns had've cooperated with the investigation, stopped courting famous faces and the media, and gradually disappeared like every other grieving set of parents do (Ramseys excluded) then they would have had barely any damage at all, in fact, they would have had a lot of sympathy.

I suggest the greatest "damage" was the public knowledge that two highly respectable, intelligent adults left their babies alone to go party, night after night, and then got defensive about it and refused to acknowledge the gravity of their own selfish neglectful behaviour.

If they'd just admitted they were wrong, maybe public opinion wouldn't be so against them.

If Kate hadn't taken off for her publicity stunt with the Pope, ditto.

If they hadn't been filmed laughing at Madeleine's memorial, if they hadn't told untruths and outright lies to cover their own butts, if, if, if.

It's kind of hard to look at some of the behaviours and say "it's Amaral's fault" when. actually, it's their own fault if their reputations are tarnished.

:cow:

 

[Inana]

At this point, I'm pretty sure aliens came down and beamed her up.


:ufo:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

At this point, I'm pretty sure aliens came down and beamed her up.


:ufo:

Ha.

I believe that someone unknown to the parents and their group took little Madeleine. I believe that she may still be alive.

With all the new reports I'm hoping and praying her parents will get some answers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Auto correct has a mind of its own.

 

[blefuscu]

There is no evidence of her being abducted. And if she was abducted how fortuitous that the first apartment the abductor tries was unlocked, had 3 sleeping children in it, had no adults in it, and (s)he managed to get in and out of the apartment right in between checks.

Plus no-one saw a stranger hanging around scoping apartments out.

Until ANY evidence shows there was a possibility of abduction I'm firmly in the MDI camp.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is no evidence of her being abducted. And if she was abducted how fortuitous that the first apartment the abductor tries was unlocked, had 3 sleeping children in it, had no adults in it, and (s)he managed to get in and out of the apartment right in between checks.

Plus no-one saw a stranger hanging around scoping apartments out.

Until ANY evidence shows there was a possibility of abduction I'm firmly in the MDI camp.

Sure there is. She is gone. No matter what she was abducted. But who is the question.
I don't believe it was fortuitous but that she was being watched. That someone wanted her specifically.

 

[blefuscu]

If her parents removed her from the room dead that isn't abduction.

And someone, that no one at all saw, not one person, was watching the room? Where is the proof of that?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If her parents removed her from the room dead that isn't abduction.

And someone, that no one at all saw, not one person, was watching the room? Where is the proof of that?

If someone took her out of the room and she is never seen again, That is an abduction. To carry someone off, is abduction...

That is just what I believe. I have to go back and look at what made me feel that way, But I do. Gut feeling, JMO but I do..

I don't see proof the parents carried her off. Not enough for me to consider it.

 

[blefuscu]

If someone took her out of the room and she is never seen again, That is an abduction. To carry someone off, is abduction...

That is just what I believe. I have to go back and look at what made me feel that way, But I do. Gut feeling, JMO but I do..

I don't see proof the parents carried her off. Not enough for me to consider it.

Gut feeling isn't evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Gut feeling isn't evidence.

No it isn't but there is no smoking gun here.

Someone saw a child being carried away. Until that person is found and it is proven it was not Maddie, Then as far as I am concerned with the timing and the circumstances, it was.

 

[Gem2626]

If her parents removed her from the room dead that isn't abduction.

And someone, that no one at all saw, not one person, was watching the room? Where is the proof of that?

Why is it so unlikely that someone could hide out of sight without being seen?

Some of the theories on what the McCanns did with Madeleine's body are pretty far fetched yet hiding in a bush or something without being seen is deemed unlikely!? rolleyes

To quote: "just because you can't see it it doesn't mean it's not there"

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Why is it so unlikely that someone could hide out of sight without being seen?

Some of the theories on what the McCanns did with Madeleine's body are pretty far fetched yet hiding in a bush or something without being seen is deemed unlikely!? rolleyes

To quote: "just because you can't see it it doesn't mean it's not there"

I agree it is entirely possible that someone was lurking there.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Auto correct has a mind of its own.

 

[Dushi]

I think it is quite possible that someone could hide out and lurk, waiting for an opportunity to strike.

Another reason why it is unfathomable to me that a responsible adult would put a child in such an unsafe situation.

A situation that would allow a stranger access to them without being seen, but thats just my thought