Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 23

[daffodil]

Oh, I see. Well this is what you posted:



MY POINT is, you believe this is what happened to Jon Benet, and MANY believe that something very similar happened to Madeleine. All you have to go on in your theory is rumors, smears and media. There is NO proof, no arrest, no conviction. So why is it okay for you to personally condemn the parents of a child, but when I do so it's morally unethical?

I dont believe I have commented on your beliefs as morally unethical .As you say about the Ramseys so I say about the McCanns ie NO proof,NO arrest,NO conviction.

 

[colomom]

I dont know who JVS is or anything about Natalie Holloway so I cant comment.I dont think this is the place to go into the ins and outs of the JBR case except to say I believe the evidence points to Patsy Ramsey but not to Kate McCann.

Evidence?? What evidence??

Patsy Ramsey has been cleared, there was NO evidence.

Oooppss...I sound like....never mind....:crazy:

(actually, I have always thought Patsy was guilty as sin)

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

I dont believe I have commented on your beliefs as morally unethical .As you say about the Ramseys so I say about the McCanns ie NO proof,NO arrest,NO conviction.

I don't believe I ever said I felt the Ramsey's innocent, nothing could be further from the truth. And you are correct that you have never said my comments are "morally unethical", it was a figure of speech. I feel as though you belittle me and other posters for our beliefs as somehow we are heathens for feeling the way we do. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[colomom]

I don't believe I ever said I felt the Ramsey's innocent, nothing could be further from the truth. And you are correct that you have never said my comments are "morally unethical", it was a figure of speech. I feel as though you belittle me and other posters for our beliefs as somehow we are heathens for feeling the way we do. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Witch hunt and lynch mob come to mind....

 

[SleuthMom]

I feel as though you belittle me and other posters for our beliefs as somehow we are heathens for feeling the way we do. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Oh she does, trust me on this one. :crazy:

 

[colomom]

From Lusa (http://noticias.sapo.pt/lusa/artigo/1975147b8e35386a30787e.html) just now:

Copied from: http://www.helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1242 #13

Madeleine: Public Ministry makes process available from Monday onwards

Faro, 31 Jul (Lusa) – The Public Ministry makes the Madeleine McCann process, whose inquiry was archived on the 21st of this month and which prompted the lifting of arguido status from the child’s parents and from Robert Murat, available to the media on Monday.

The document starts being made available to the journalists that requested access to the process, starting on Monday at the Public Ministry’s Office that operates with the Portimão Court, an official source informed today.

 

[daffodil]

I don't believe I ever said I felt the Ramsey's innocent, nothing could be further from the truth. And you are correct that you have never said my comments are "morally unethical", it was a figure of speech. I feel as though you belittle me and other posters for our beliefs as somehow we are heathens for feeling the way we do. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Works both ways imo.

 

[daffodil]

Oh she does, trust me on this one. :crazy:

Who is SHE?????? Perhaps you would explain as I dont which part of the quoted postyou are referencing.

 

[daffodil]

Witch hunt and lynch mob come to mind....

Give me a bloody break sheesh :furious:

 

[colomom]

http://www.the-news.net/cgi-bin/google.pl?id=970-2

Exclusive in English: Former ‘Maddie Cop’ interview
2/8/2008

In an interview staged only a short walk from the regional PJ police headquarters in Faro over the weekend, Gonçalo Amaral, the former leading detective in the case involving the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, has an open and frank conversation with The Portugal News. Lambasted by the British media, and ignored by much of the Portuguese written press since the launch of his controversial book last week (which the Correia da Manhã newspaper has assisted in promoting), Gonçalo Amaral explains his reasoning behind certain methods of investigation, and stresses his actions to date have not been to accuse anyone, rather, he argues, his focus has been about the pursuit of truth.

The Portugal News: Did you leak information about the investigation to the media?

Gonçalo Amaral: I never had anything to do with leaks. We have to look at from where these leaks could have originated. A number of entities worked with us during the investigations and we cannot rule out the possibility that some of these leaks originated in Britain. As a matter of fact, when the FSS handed over their report to Portuguese police, we kept it under wraps, but a British daily was the first to appear with extracts of the FSS’s findings.

TPN: But how does that explain that some sections of the Portuguese press have printed confidential information that later proved to be accurate?

GA: Perhaps they had good sources of information, but we cannot conclude that they were given information by police in the Algarve.

TPN: The report leaked last week says that Gerry and Kate were made arguidos on the “merest possibility” that they were involved in the disappearance of their child. Is that accurate?

GA: They were made arguidos on suspicion of two crimes: concealing a body and simulating an abduction and potentially the crime of abandonment. But saying they were made arguidos on the merest possibility that they were involved in the disappearance of their child is not true. The conclusions reached by the team investigating the crime, including colleagues in Britain, are the same as the five points I mention at the end of my book. Perhaps the conclusions reached in this latest report were made to facilitate the archiving of the case and findings were put across in a mild manner. Once you gain access to the case files, you will find that it was not due to a mere possibility.

<continues>

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Works both ways imo.

Oh, BTW, I forgot to mention, I think your theory in the JBR case is pretty good...

 

[SleuthMom]

Give me a bloody break sheesh :furious:

What? Did Colomom lie?

 

[SleuthMom]

Who is SHE?????? Perhaps you would explain as I dont which part of the quoted postyou are referencing.

Sure. I thought it was obvious. YOU I was referring to.

 

[april4sky]

Oh, I see. Interesting.

I am Pro-Madeleine.

You are the one who mentioned Pro and Anti McCanns.

I thought it was a given that we are All Pro- Madeleine. :waitasec:

 

[Barnaby]

For sure taking a break :furious: I really cannot deal with the nonsense on here!

Bottom line -
Two parents left three kids under four alone to go get pissed & have a good night! Alone in an unsecured apartment if what they would have us believe is true! An apartment on the main road despite the warnings that complex owners had given about burglaries!

One of those kids went missing, if genuine abduction, wouldn't have happened if parents were not pissed in local Tapas bar! End of!

What kind of people will continue to defend these moronic imbeciles I cannot fathom, what they did is like putting your hand on coals in an open fire & expecting not to get burned!

Wake up & smell the roses which Madeleine will never smell again! The Mccanns killed her, whether by their own hands or by utter negligence! THEY DID IT! they are responsible for whatever happened to a defenceless 3 year old! I bloodywell hope their night of drinking & fun was worth it! I hope that everytime they put a drink in their mouths again, they will think of the ACTUAL COST of their pleasure!

People like these do not deserve the wonderful gift of children which most of us here appreciate & cherish!

 

[april4sky]

After reading all of Aprils posts I see that she feels JVS is guilty in the Natalee Holloway case, and he has never been formally charged or convicted of her disappearance either. This tell me that it's not a moral issue to defend the McCanns with either of you....if it were, you would defend all who are accused until PROVEN otherwise.

Yes IW, I do think JVS guilty.
Every case is different and if you have followed Natalee's case you would know that.

Interesting to me that you picked Natalee's case.
If you check her thread you will see clearly what people think of the Aruban Police investigation.
See if you can spot the similarities between the PLE and the ALE. :furious:

IW Did you see Jorans video? nuff said! :furious:

 

[twinkiesmom]

The one thing the Ramseys and the McCann's have in common...you take away 6 or 7 zeros from their annual income, and someone's sitting in jail.

 

[SleuthMom]

I thought it was a given that we are All Pro- Madeleine. :waitasec:

NOT based on your many comments about how you perceive some of the discussions here.

 

[april4sky]

Evidence?? What evidence??

Patsy Ramsey has been cleared, there was NO evidence.

Oooppss...I sound like....never mind....:crazy:

(actually, I have always thought Patsy was guilty as sin)

Oooppss indeed!! Talk about attempting to belittle...perhaps IW should check this out!!

I don't know enough about the Jonbenet case to give an opinon either way but haven't the police been accused of botching the crime scene. Another crime scene compromised.:waitasec:

I have compared the writing on the ransom note to Patsy's.:waitasec: Very interesting IMO. :waitasec:

Every case is different!!

 

[april4sky]

NOT based on your many comments about how you perceive some of the discussions here.

Untrue and a nasty nasty comment Sleuthmom. :furious: I thought better of you!!