McCanns launch new appeal

[Jayelles]

Nope - im suggesting our police are stupid not the Pjs. Wasnt the Pjs fault the British cops wouldnt give them the info they wanted.

I see. What information was this?

 

[Isabella]

I see. What information was this?

I see - firstly you didnt know about the text messages and now you dont know other things the pjs asked for they wasnt given by our police..

I guess the Telegraph isnt so good with the facts after all

MOO

 

[Isabella]

Actually, April4sky, the McCanns and the T7 have made many state,emts which contradict. Cleverly (lawyer advised) Kate refused to answer a significant number oif questions and Gerry answered all questions - a typical ploy to avoid caontradiction - and very revealing in itself!

Anyway, here is a documented contradiction, Tanner said she saw the 'baductor' at 9:15 PM, for a long time this was not contradicted. Suddenly on Gerry's blog he stated he had been looking down on Madeleines sleeping form at 9:15! Explain why he'd do that at a time when every word was being carefully selected and filtered through Clarence's media and legal filters?

To be honest I dont understand McCann supporters because for them it seems to be all about trying to clear the McCanns rather than looking into all aspects. The report is taken as the complete gospel - when really if people look at ALL facts they would know some things dont add up.

MOO

 

[Jayelles]

To be honest I dont understand McCann supporters because for them it seems to be all about trying to clear the McCanns rather than looking into all aspects. The report is taken as the complete gospel - when really if people look at ALL facts they would know some things dont add up.

MOO

No it is not about clearing the parents. In case you hadn't noticed, they've already been cleared. Defending the McCanns against blatant lies is about trying to solve a crime by looking at the facts. One thing we know for sure is that there weren't many facts reported by the newspapers. The facts of this case do not support parental involvement - something which the conclusions of the Portuguese Attorney General agreed with when he cleared them.

I am not a McCann "supporter", I am a FindMadeleine Supporter and a supporter of Justic. Justice is not done by spreading lies and misinformation about ANYONE in this case. I'd do the same if I knew there was misinformation being posted about Amaral.

You can go here to hear what a former FBI profiler has to say about the differences in the statements of the McCann friends. It's about 4 minutes long, be sure to listen to the end:-

http://www.truveo.com/Van-Zandt-holds-parents-responsible/id/3158676816#

 

[Isabella]

No it is not about clearing the parents. In case you hadn't noticed, they've already been cleared. Defending the McCanns against blatant lies is about trying to solve a crime by looking at the facts. One thing we know for sure is that there weren't many facts reported by the newspapers. The facts of this case do not support parental involvement - something which the conclusions of the Portuguese Attorney General agreed with when he cleared them.

I am not a McCann "supporter", I am a FindMadeleine Supporter and a supporter of Justic. Justice is not done by spreading lies and misinformation about ANYONE in this case. I'd do the same if I knew there was misinformation being posted about Amaral.

You can go here to hear what a former FBI profiler has to say about the differences in the statements of the McCann friends. It's about 4 minutes long, be sure to listen to the end:-

http://www.truveo.com/Van-Zandt-holds-parents-responsible/id/3158676816#

There is absolutely NO evidence she was kidnapped either so..im curious how you choose one over the other?

So lets see..there is no proof the parents were involved...or that she was kidnapped..so..theres a problem there dont you think?

 

[Jayelles]

There is absolutely NO evidence she was kidnapped either so..im curious how you choose one over the other?

So lets see..there is no proof the parents were involved...or that she was kidnapped..so..theres a problem there dont you think?

Of course there is evidence she was kidnapped (or whatever word you wish to use). Her complete disappearance is evidence of her having been kidnapped (etc).

You should check out the case of Danielle vanDam who "disappeared" from her bed in California a few years ago. Her parents came under a lot of fire too and were accused of her murder even before her body was found in the desert some weeks after she went missing. it transpired that she had been taken by a neighbour who had tried to pick her mother up earlier that evening in a club.

The police found no evidence of Westerfield, her abductor and subsequent killer in her home and he must have gotten in and out in a matter of minutes whilst her father and brothers were in the house. No-one saw a thing.

Fortunately, Westerfield was caught and an abundance of evidence of Danielle was found in his home and in his motorhome including her blood on his jacket. He got the death penalty. He had no previous convictions other than for drink driving and it was only as a result of the investigation that a load of other stuff came out.

 

[Isabella]

Of course there is evidence she was kidnapped (or whatever word you wish to use). Her complete disappearance is evidence of her having been kidnapped (etc).

You should check out the case of Danielle vanDam who "disappeared" from her bed in California a few years ago. Her parents came under a lot of fire too and were accused of her murder even before her body was found in the desert some weeks after she went missing. it transpired that she had been taken by a neighbour who had tried to pick her mother up earlier that evening in a club.

The police found no evidence of Westerfield, her abductor and subsequent killer in her home and he must have gotten in and out in a matter of minutes whilst her father and brothers were in the house. No-one saw a thing.

Fortunately, Westerfield was caught and an abundance of evidence of Danielle was found in his home and in his motorhome including her blood on his jacket. He got the death penalty. He had no previous convictions other than for drink driving and it was only as a result of the investigation that a load of other stuff came out.

Erm no...the fact that WE dont know where Madeleine is right now is NOT proof that she was kidnapped and to be honest i find it weird anyone would think she was kidnapped based on those grounds. MOO

 

[april4sky]

No it is not about clearing the parents. In case you hadn't noticed, they've already been cleared. Defending the McCanns against blatant lies is about trying to solve a crime by looking at the facts. One thing we know for sure is that there weren't many facts reported by the newspapers. The facts of this case do not support parental involvement - something which the conclusions of the Portuguese Attorney General agreed with when he cleared them.

I am not a McCann "supporter", I am a FindMadeleine Supporter and a supporter of Justic. Justice is not done by spreading lies and misinformation about ANYONE in this case. I'd do the same if I knew there was misinformation being posted about Amaral.

You can go here to hear what a former FBI profiler has to say about the differences in the statements of the McCann friends. It's about 4 minutes long, be sure to listen to the end:-

http://www.truveo.com/Van-Zandt-holds-parents-responsible/id/3158676816#

The above bolded. I couldn't agree more. :clap:

And thank you for posting the link Jayelles as I hadn't seen the interview before.

Here's another by a former FBI special agent giving his views on Madeleiene's case shortly after she went missing. Very interesting and informative.

http://a.abcnews.com/2020/story?id=4766445&page=1

It's good to hear someone with experience telling it like it is - and with lots of common sense.

 

[Jayelles]

Erm no...the fact that WE dont know where Madeleine is right now is NOT proof that she was kidnapped and to be honest i find it weird anyone would think she was kidnapped based on those grounds. MOO

Dictionary check Isabella

I didn't say it was proof that she was kidnapped. I said it was evidence that she was kidnapped in response to you saying (and I quote):-

Isabella says>> There is absolutely NO evidence she was kidnapped either so..im curious how you choose one over the other?

The fact that a child is missing IS evidence of being kidnapped. It's very fundamental and essential evidence.

Dictionary.com - Evidence (noun) Ground for belief

 

[Isabella]

Dictionary check Isabella

I didn't say it was proof that she was kidnapped. I said it was evidence that she was kidnapped in response to you saying (and I quote):-

The fact that a child is missing IS evidence of being kidnapped. It's very fundamental and essential evidence.

Dictionary.com - Evidence (noun) Ground for belief

However you want to put it - that still is NOT evidence of being kidnapped. MOO

 

[Jayelles]

However you want to put it - that still is NOT evidence of being kidnapped. MOO

I'm glad you are adding that it is your own opinion that a missing child is not grounds for believing a kidnapping has taken place.

I take it you also don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?

 

[Isabella]

I'm glad you are adding that it is your own opinion that a missing child is not grounds for believing a kidnapping has taken place.

I take it you also don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?

The problem with your theory - there is no evidence of WHY she is missing - the fact that her parents "allege" she was missing is not proof of kidnap.

And im still curious why the only "witness" to the kidnapping ( out of a whole holiday resort) just happened to be the McCanns friend - and was reported by Gerry and Jez to have not been there and when asked..didnt even put them in the right PLACE.

Just weird IMO

 

[Jayelles]

The problem with your theory - there is no evidence of WHY she is missing - the fact that her parents "allege" she was missing is not proof of kidnap.

There is NOTHING wrong with my theory. NO evidence of why she is missing? Are you serious? What you are referring to is called motive. Motive is not always apparent or indeed present at all (never heard of a motiveless crime?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

In a murder case, you have to prove the perp had means and opportuity but you do not have to prove any motive.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html

And im still curious why the only "witness" to the kidnapping ( out of a whole holiday resort) just happened to be the McCanns friend - and was reported by Gerry and Jez to have not been there and when asked..didnt even put them in the right PLACE.

Just weird IMO

You can make any theory fit if you ignore the facts.

 

[rashomon]

Gerry was the first to check at around 9pm. Originally he said he went in and saw the twins asleep. Madeleine he said he did not see and that he thought she had wandered into his and Kates room after getting a drink or going to the toilet. A few weeks later this changed to he saw all three children and thought how lucky he was too have the.

Do you (or others) have a link to Gerry's statement where he says he didn't see Madeleine and thought she had gone to her parents' bedroom?

 

[Jayelles]

I am astonished that despite the enormous amount of inaccurate and false stories that have been published about the McCanns regarding what they did and said, you STILL don't put discrepancies down to bad reporting and would apparently rather attribute them to the McCanns not being able to keep their stories straight!

 

[Isabella]

Do you (or others) have a link to Gerry's statement where he says he didn't see Madeleine and thought she had gone to her parents' bedroom?

Hi Rash

It came out at the very beginning of the case - however most of that stuff has gone Whoosh as the stories changed!

 

[Jayelles]

Hi Rash

It came out at the very beginning of the case - however most of that stuff has gone Whoosh as the stories changed!

...as the newspapers changed their stories.

 

[Isabella]

I am astonished that despite the enormous amount of inaccurate and false stories that have been published about the McCanns regarding what they did and said, you STILL don't put discrepancies down to bad reporting and would apparently rather attribute them to the McCanns not being able to keep their stories straight!

With all respect ive seen the STATEMENTS where they claim Tanner wasnt there. Ive seen the STATEMENTS where they state firmly they wasnt where Tanner claims she saw them. Thats nothing WHATSOEVER do with bad reporting.

Another interesting fact that jumped out to me. When Jane first returned to England she did an interview with one of the dailies where she said she saw the "kidnapper" on her way to meet her friends as she was late and how devastated she was she didnt realise it was Madeleine. Although at that point she also stated that she wasnt sure it was a child ( that story evolved later like Darwins evolution i guess). And yet in her statement to the Pjs she said she was going from the Tapas bar to the apartment when she saw him.

 

[Isabella]

...as the newspapers changed their stories.

Nope..when Clarence Mitchell told them to remove there stories.

At the end of the day however you put it - there is no evidence she was kidnapped and you claim there is no evidence her parents were involved and YET one of these things happened.

 

[Jayelles]

Nope..when Clarence Mitchell told them to remove there stories.

Trust me, newspapers do not simply remove stories because someone asks them to. Two newspapers - the Express and the Star (both trashy tabloids) removed stories which they acknowledged were false.

There is a vast difference, even if you are unable to see it.

At the end of the day however you put it - there is no evidence she was kidnapped and you claim there is no evidence her parents were involved and YET one of these things happened.

And no matter how much you want it to be so, the only thing we know for certain is that Madeleine was taken by person or persons unknown and that her parents had neither means nor opportunity to do everything they would have had to do to fit your theory.

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove they killed their daughter (accidentally or deliberately - makes no matter) and then hid her body. It is not on them to prove their innocence.

The McCanns have been cleared by the Portuguese Attorney General on the ground of lack of evidence that they committed ANY crime.

I am very willing to hear your proof that the Attorney General got his facts wrong. You need to back it up with FACTS though. No speculation or ignoring of known facts to make your theory fit.