Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread #27

[Donjeta]

JMO but unless there is reason to suspect that Amaral has falsified some evidence in this case his sins are more or less irrelevant to me. Whoever took Madeleine did not know that Amaral would be the lead detective. He's after the fact and his issues have no effect on the facts of the case.

A. The parents are innocent. The lead detective is a saint.
B. The parents are innocent. The lead detective is a crook.
C. The parents are guilty. The lead detective is a saint.
D. The parents are guilty. The lead detective is a crook.

All four scenarios A, B, C, D are possible.

So Amaral being convicted or not doesn't change what happened to Madeleine. Likewise with the private spies who stole perfume and what not.

If these people lied about something regarding the evidence that would be relevant. But I would first like to hear what they lied about, if anything, and why we should think so before taking it for granted.

 

[haden]

JMO but unless there is reason to suspect that Amaral has falsified some evidence in this case his sins are more or less irrelevant to me. Whoever took Madeleine did not know that Amaral would be the lead detective. He's after the fact and his issues have no effect on the facts of the case.

A. The parents are innocent. The lead detective is a saint.
B. The parents are innocent. The lead detective is a crook.
C. The parents are guilty. The lead detective is a saint.
D. The parents are guilty. The lead detective is a crook.

All four scenarios A, B, C, D are possible.

So Amaral being convicted or not doesn't change what happened to Madeleine. Likewise with the private spies who stole perfume and what not.

If these people lied about something regarding the evidence that would be relevant. But I would first like to hear what they lied about, if anything, and why we should think so before taking it for granted.

You are absolutely right here.
Your ABCD scenarios are correct for the moment before Scotland Yard and the new PJ teams have reviewed the case.

But now it is a new moment. The case has been reviewed by two strong police teams, reopened and they work in cooperation. Amaral no longer matters, he is history, together with his theories.

Both teams after the review, have said they are now looking for the abductor.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I am not pro McCann, I am pro Madeleine being alive and pro proper policing.

If the Scotland Yard and the New PJ teams come out with charging McCanns with a crime I'd be surprised but I'd clap my hands to them..

I am not hoping for that.. I am hoping with all my heart that they will find Madeleine. Alive!

I hope you're right. A live Madeleine would be the best possible outcome to this mess.

The dogs have indicated that is not the case. We cannot rule out the possibility that they may be correct even though many have tried.

The McCanns did not refer to bringing Madeleine home once in Crimewatch. They did not take the opportunity to speak directly to a now 10 year old Madeleine, even though the program was being broadcast in countries she may well be in.

They indicated to me by their speech and behaviour that they think she's dead, also that she is not going to be found, ever, in any form.

How do you reconcile this? How do you explain the e-fit being supressed?

:waitasec:

 

[haden]

efit being suppressed is a news report.. I don't trust the news reports so much especially because there is another news report saying the efit was given to PJ and SY on time.

 

[Morag]

I've always had the impression that the twins were two when this happened. Yet one of Kate's early helpers/nannies stated that they were born in February 2006. Another friend remarked that they were about 6 months old in September 2006. If those are accurate, then the twins were only about 14-15 months old when Madeleine disappeared. Not that it matters, but leaving one-year-old babies alone seems even worse.

 

[SapphireSteel]

You are absolutely right here.
Your ABCD scenarios are correct for the moment before Scotland Yard and the new PJ teams have reviewed the case.

But now it is a new moment. The case has been reviewed by two strong police teams, reopened and they work in cooperation. Amaral no longer matters, he is history, together with his theories.
Both teams after the review, have said they are now looking for the abductor.

Erm.....he is in the middle of being sued for libel by Team McCann right now.

I suggest he still is extremely relevant. To the McCanns, at least.

 

[Donjeta]

You are absolutely right here.
Your ABCD scenarios are correct for the moment before Scotland Yard and the new PJ teams have reviewed the case.

But now it is a new moment. The case has been reviewed by two strong police teams, reopened and they work in cooperation. Amaral no longer matters, he is history, together with his theories.

Both teams after the review, have said they are now looking for the abductor.

I wish I could be sure that they have any idea who they're looking for. They still seem to have so many theories. Scandinavian, Dutch or German lurkers burglars or the Smith e-fit guy or one of the other e-fits that they showed in the Crimewatch or gypsies who were also seen lurking about and the Dutch or German guys or British cleaners with a van or Portuguese charity scammers or.... If it seems unlikely that the Tapas crew all collaborated to cover up a child's death it also seems somewhat unlikely to me that this is an international conspiracy between the Dutch and the German and the British and the Portuguese and the gypsies, all equally busy lurking.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I've always had the impression that the twins were two when this happened. Yet one of Kate's early helpers/nannies stated that they were born in February 2006. Another friend remarked that they were about 6 months old in September 2006. If those are accurate, then the twins were only about 14-15 months old when Madeleine disappeared. Not that it matters, but leaving one-year-old babies alone seems even worse.

Precisely...

How have they managed to convince so many people that they are entirely blameless?

How have they managed to convince themselves?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I'm sorry but where is the presser with Clarry holding up the efit back in 08 like he did all the others?

If we agree this was done in 2008, we also have to agree it was never publicised by the McCanns.

Even if you don't agree they "supressed" it, you have to agree they did not disseminate it.

Why not? It makes no sense at all, especially as they used The Fund to discover this vital information.

 

[Donjeta]

efit being suppressed is a news report.. I don't trust the news reports so much especially because there is another news report saying the efit was given to PJ and SY on time.

Didn't Andy Redwood say that the e-fit had never been published before? That's how the show was marketed anyway: a new e-fit of a new suspect. And apparently the anonymous Fund source said that they chose not to publish it because it would be too expensive.
Whether it was suppressed or not the net effect was exactly the same: the picture of the alleged abductor sat in someone's desk drawer for five years. In the meantime... where's Madeleine been for five years?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Didn't Andy Redwood say that the e-fit had never been published before? That's how the show was marketed anyway: a new e-fit of a new suspect. And apparently the anonymous Fund source said that they chose not to publish it because it would be too expensive.
Whether it was suppressed or not the net effect was exactly the same: the picture of the alleged abductor sat in someone's desk drawer for five years. In the meantime... where's Madeleine been for five years?

It's worse than that.

We now know that this sighting is the real sighting.

They've had the sketch of the perp who really took Madeleine all these years, and never published it.

All these years they knew Tanner's sighting was wrong, and they never said anything.

This meant that hours and hours and millions of dollars of resources went into chasing up someone who never had Madeleine in the first place.

Right up until a fortnight ago the entire world discounted the Smith sighting and tried to fit in the Tanner sighting.

The McCanns knew all along that the Smiths sighting was correct, but they let everyone believe otherwise.

This cannot be explained or rationalised away. It is unbelievable and actively derailed the investigation.

Which of course is exactly what they've done from the very beginning.

:sick:

 

[Veidt]

I usually don't post here because I don't have a definite opinion or theory, though it seems to me like there are many things in this case that just don't fit, but I had to reply to this:

B B M
The pictures of Madeleine's last days seen with her family make me think she was not an abused child or a stressed child, etc.

This is an extremely dangerous mindset. Please don't say things like that. There are many, many children who are abused but nobody ever knows because on the surface everything looks normal. Abuse takes many forms... sometimes it's the very blatant case of a kid with a black eye, sometimes the perpetrators are very good at hiding what they've done and many even have a great reputation.

For anecdotal evidence, I have a good friend. I've met his family and they were ALL incredibly nice and charming. Looking at his pictures from childhood and even nowadays you'd think they've always gotten along well and taken good care of him. When I was going through my angsty teenage stage at one point I almost felt jealous of him for having such a perfect family who seemed so welcoming and kind. He later told me that one of his relatives was VERY abusive to some family members including him but this relative of his seemed completely normal and was even a well-respected member of our community. That also added to the fear of his victims of speaking up because they were afraid nobody would believe him capable of such things.

It's exactly because of that that I'm saying this, because sometimes it might make it harder for people to get help or for others to notice something's wrong if they all believe the kind of stuff you're saying. Also it adds to the belief that abusive people are easily spotted when it's not true, abusive people often look and act exactly like any of us.

Saying things like that is naive at best and can be incredibly detrimental.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I usually don't post here because I don't have a definite opinion or theory, though it seems to me like there are many things in this case that just don't fit, but I had to reply to this:



This is an extremely dangerous mindset. Please don't say things like that. There are many, many children who are abused but nobody ever knows because on the surface everything looks normal. Abuse takes many forms... sometimes it's the very blatant case of a kid with a black eye, sometimes the perpetrators are very good at hiding what they've done and many even have a great reputation.

For anecdotal evidence, I have a good friend. I've met his family and they were ALL incredibly nice and charming. Looking at his pictures from childhood and even nowadays you'd think they've always gotten along well and taken good care of him. When I was going through my angsty teenage stage at one point I almost felt jealous of him for having such a perfect family who seemed so welcoming and kind. He later told me that one of his relatives was VERY abusive to some family members including him but this relative of his seemed completely normal and was even a well-respected member of our community. That also added to the fear of his victims of speaking up because they were afraid nobody would believe him capable of such things.

It's exactly because of that that I'm saying this, because sometimes it might make it harder for people to get help or for others to notice something's wrong if they all believe the kind of stuff you're saying. Also it adds to the belief that abusive people are easily spotted when it's not true, abusive people often look and act exactly like any of us.

Saying things like that is naive at best and can be incredibly detrimental.

:goodpost:

ITA.

Thanks for joining us. :seeya:

 

[jigzy]

Apologies if this has been posted here already, but I find the subject of Bridget O'Donnell's (Jez Wilkins' partner's) new book a little close to the mark:

"In Victorian London, the age of consent was just thirteen. Unwitting girls were regularly enticed, tricked and sold into prostitution. If not marked out for a gentleman in a city brothel, they were legally trafficked to Brussels, Paris and beyond. All the while, the Establishment turned a blind eye. That is, until one policeman wrote an incendiary report. Disgraced for testifying against a violent colleague, Irish inspector Jeremiah Minahan was transferred to the backwater of Chelsea as punishment. Here he met Mary Jeffries, a notorious trafficker and procuress who counted Cabinet members and royalty among her clientele. Within days of reporting Jeffries, Minahan was unceremoniously forced out of the Metropolitan Police."


Inspector Minahan Makes a Stand: The Missing Girls of England: Amazon.co.uk: Bridget O'Donnell


Interesting?

 

[haden]

The McCanns knew all along that the Smiths sighting was correct, but they let everyone believe otherwise.

Oh. c'mom even if they did suppress this lead, how would they know this????

 

[SapphireSteel]

This ugliness has always been with us.

The McCann case is also starting to look ugly.

I sincerely hope Madeleine was not a victim of abuse.

lease:

I am as resistant to a pedophile/filicide scenario as the next pro-McCann (it seems so unlikely), but such a motive would explain everything.

 

[haden]

Apologies if this has been posted here already, but I find the subject of Bridget O'Donnell's (Jez Wilkins' partner's) new book a little close to the mark:

"In Victorian London, the age of consent was just thirteen. Unwitting girls were regularly enticed, tricked and sold into prostitution. If not marked out for a gentleman in a city brothel, they were legally trafficked to Brussels, Paris and beyond. All the while, the Establishment turned a blind eye. That is, until one policeman wrote an incendiary report. Disgraced for testifying against a violent colleague, Irish inspector Jeremiah Minahan was transferred to the backwater of Chelsea as punishment. Here he met Mary Jeffries, a notorious trafficker and procuress who counted Cabinet members and royalty among her clientele. Within days of reporting Jeffries, Minahan was unceremoniously forced out of the Metropolitan Police."


Inspector Minahan Makes a Stand: The Missing Girls of England: Amazon.co.uk: Bridget O'Donnell: Books


Interesting?

Why would this be interesting for this case?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Oh. c'mom even if they did suppress this lead, how would they know this????

Sorry, how would who know what?

 

[jigzy]

Why would this be interesting for this case?

I just think it is interesting because of who she is. Bridget wrote this article in 2007 about her time in PDL.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann

It paints a rosy picture of the McCanns and makes the PJ seem like buffoons, not asking for a statement from Jes. Interestingly she says the children were all blonde and pink, and she didn't see Madeleine specifically on the 3rd despite observing the tennis and the children running around collecting balls.

"I once worked as a producer in the BBC crime unit. I directed many reconstructions and spent my second pregnancy producing new investigations for Crimewatch. Detectives would call me daily, detailing their cases, and some stories stay with me still, such as the ones about a girl being snatched from her bath, or her bike, or her garden and then held in the passenger seat, or stuffed in the boot. There was always a vehicle, and the first few hours were crucial to the outcome. Afterwards, they would be dumped naked in an alley, or at a petrol station with a £10 note to "get a cab back to Mummy". They would be found within an hour or two. Sometimes."

Nothing gets in the way of a good story - not even sparing a thought for the upset parents huh

So her new book is about sex trafficking, police corruption and tabloid war.

Sorry you don't find it interesting haden. I do

jmo.

 

[Jmoose]

I've always had the impression that the twins were two when this happened. Yet one of Kate's early helpers/nannies stated that they were born in February 2006. Another friend remarked that they were about 6 months old in September 2006. If those are accurate, then the twins were only about 14-15 months old when Madeleine disappeared. Not that it matters, but leaving one-year-old babies alone seems even worse.

This is why I commented recently about her parents leaving Madeleine alone to care for twin babies and got taken to task about it by the "McCanns are wonderful parents who are not responsible for anything that happened to Maddie" contingent.