New Sketch of Maddie Abductor

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

iNTERESTEDWOMAN I believe I was clear enough.
I don't think the problem is confusion as much as you not liking my posts.

You could always put me on ignore you know.

WHAT? I NEVER said I didn't like your posts. You are speculating and drawing conclusions without valid evidence. Why would you do such a thing?

As far as the ignore button...well, that goes both ways. Matter of fact, I believe the McCanns push the ignore button. They don't care what we talk about, why should they? They have publicly said that they are only interested in finding their daughter. They don't need a glee club.

I have asked your oppenion on several issues throughout the last several months, when you reply, you never actually answer the question. What's that all about? What do you think about the defamation of Character of Robert Murat?

 

[Rino]

In fact no evidence except that Madeleine is missing.

Which brings us back to my point of how dangerous a little knowledge, or even none, as in this case can be.

Maddie missing is not evidence of an abduction. As much as you want it to be it simply is not. The only fact is precious few know where she is or what happened to her and the McCanns have not been cleared.

You want to debate evidence then bring some to the table.You seem to confuse faith with evidence imo.

 

[gord]

WHAT? I NEVER said I didn't like your posts. You are speculating and drawing conclusions without valid evidence. Why would you do such a thing?

As far as the ignore button...well, that goes both ways. Matter of fact, I believe the McCanns push the ignore button. They don't care what we talk about, why should they? They have publicly said that they are only interested in finding their daughter. They don't need a glee club.

I have asked your oppenion on several issues throughout the last several months, when you reply, you never actually answer the question. What's that all about? What do you think about the defamation of Character of Robert Murat?

Did the Mccaans make Murat an Arguido ........no

Is it The Mccaans who continue to hold Murat .......no

I think if you are concerened about the status of Murat you had better be talking to the PJ and the Portugese about this


You know it wasnt even the Mccaans who first raised Murat - it was a journalist who thouight him to be suspicous .

If Murat wants to be let go as a suspect I think he had best talk to the police

 

[gord]

Maddie missing is not evidence of an abduction. As much as you want it to be it simply is not. The only fact is precious few know where she is or what happened to her and the McCanns have not been cleared.

You want to debate evidence then bring some to the table.You seem to confuse faith with evidence imo.

the simple fact in this case is that there is painfully little evidence either way

Both theories , abduction and parental murder seem unlikely simply because there very little to go on - but Maddie is missing so something must have happened to her

Yet we have no body , no idea , just theories that range from the extreme

If there was , there would have been a case by now

 

[april4sky]

Maddie missing is not evidence of an abduction. As much as you want it to be it simply is not. The only fact is precious few know where she is or what happened to her and the McCanns have not been cleared.

You want to debate evidence then bring some to the table.You seem to confuse faith with evidence imo.

Rino I don't believe I ever said there Was evidence of an abduction.
Only that there is No evidence that the McCanns harmed Madeleine.....Before this is jumped on.....We all know they shouldn't have left the children alone.

I have no idea if they are guilty. Just the same as everyone else.

The only thing we do know for sure is that Madeleine is missing.

I am tired of printing these words..ie...Lies, Rumours and Leaks...As much probably as you are of reading them. But they are the reason there is so much hatred of the McCanns. IMO. It does make debating difficult.....And believe me I have tried.

 

[Claycat]

He doesn't look like the drawing at all! It is obviously the wrong man!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=510082&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

The reason I am quoting my own post is because you need to know that The Daily Mail is a totally biased newspaper. I posted a comment, and they edited my words, twisting them to suit their agenda. Evidently their agenda is to discredit the witnesses.

Do not trust them as a reputable news source! I will not be using them as a reference again!

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Rino I don't believe I ever said there Was evidence of an abduction.
Only that there is No evidence that the McCanns harmed Madeleine.....Before this is jumped on.....We all know they shouldn't have left the children alone.

I have no idea if they are guilty. Just the same as everyone else.

The only thing we do know for sure is that Madeleine is missing.

I am tired of printing these words..ie...Lies, Rumours and Leaks...As much probably as you are of reading them. But they are the reason there is so much hatred of the McCanns. IMO. It does make debating difficult.....And believe me I have tried.

WHO cares? The McCanns don't care...they are too busy looking for their daughter. They don't need a fan club, they never asked for a fan club, Why do you feel this urgent need to defend them, when they didn't ask you to? I have never heard them publicly complain about Internet groups, have you? I've never heard them ask for anything except money. If you really want to help them, set up a fund raiser.

 

[Rino]

Rino I don't believe I ever said there Was evidence of an abduction.
Only that there is No evidence that the McCanns harmed Madeleine.....Before this is jumped on.....We all know they shouldn't have left the children alone.

I have no idea if they are guilty. Just the same as everyone else.

The only thing we do know for sure is that Madeleine is missing.

I am tired of printing these words..ie...Lies, Rumours and Leaks...As much probably as you are of reading them. But they are the reason there is so much hatred of the McCanns. IMO. It does make debating difficult.....And believe me I have tried.

Okay. What lies???

Since no one here knows, and I am not meaning to be difficult, but why do you choose to beleive they are not lying about the abduction with no evidence?

I can tell you at least from my perspective, based on their actions, words, representations and behavior I do not beleive them. I find the debate diffucult due to the fact that it seems all I base my thoughts on you will declair either a: lie (how can you know) ;rumor (we all know that possibility); or leak ( Which cannot be cast aside as a lie)
To borrow others questions can you debate these without relying on the above crutches?

What do you think about the defamation of Character of Robert Murat?

The McCanns didn't see the guy(Bundleman), how do they know he's (the pigfarmer) not the same person?

 

[ThoughtFox]

Twice to be exact, and that because it was purposely twisted the first time.

We seem to have a difference of opinion of "research."
Discussion would be good but not when the only purpose seems to be to crucify the McCanns on rumour and malicious leaks.

I'm sorry ThoughtFox, but thats mostly what I see happening.

Sadly Websleuths isn't immune from malicious rumours as they are being picked up and repeated here from other boards. The Mirror board included. It's no surprise that they have decided to close their Madeleine thread as it had moved way beyond "Research"

Where do you suggest we "research" if we don't use the press, the McCann's interviews, their statements, and the facts that we know about the case?

I've never been sure just what you want to discuss - only that you believe everything is a "malicious rumor" unless it favors the McCanns being innocent. I don't think that's fair to say.

"Leaks" are not always "Lies." Trust me - sometimes the police "Leak" to see the reaction of those involved. Sometimes they leak so that people will know they are still working hard behind the scenes.

Notice how the police got all over this "suspect" after two days of the McCanns insisting he was the "abductor." They wanted to squlech that since it isn't true anyway.

I find it useless to read statements that certain papers are "totally biased." What happens if the Daily Mail agrees with all the other newspapers in the UK? What are we supposed to think - that they are all biased a certain way?

Or could it just be that they are reporting the same piece of news? And that it might just be the truth?

I don't believe in whitewashing people when there are so many questions about their behavior. That's what we talk about here - human behavior and crime.

 

[april4sky]

WHO cares? The McCanns don't care...they are too busy looking for their daughter. They don't need a fan club, they never asked for a fan club, Why do you feel this urgent need to defend them, when they didn't ask you to? I have never heard them publicly complain about Internet groups, have you? I've never heard them ask for anything except money. If you really want to help them, set up a fund raiser.

Couldn't you find the ignore button.

 

[april4sky]

Where do you suggest we "research" if we don't use the press, the McCann's interviews, their statements, and the facts that we know about the case?

I've never been sure just what you want to discuss - only that you believe everything is a "malicious rumor" unless it favors the McCanns being innocent. I don't think that's fair to say.

"Leaks" are not always "Lies." Trust me - sometimes the police "Leak" to see the reaction of those involved. Sometimes they leak so that people will know they are still working hard behind the scenes.

Notice how the police got all over this "suspect" after two days of the McCanns insisting he was the "abductor." They wanted to squlech that since it isn't true anyway.

I find it useless to read statements that certain papers are "totally biased." What happens if the Daily Mail agrees with all the other newspapers in the UK? What are we supposed to think - that they are all biased a certain way?

Or could it just be that they are reporting the same piece of news? And that it might just be the truth?

I don't believe in whitewashing people when there are so many questions about their behavior. That's what we talk about here - human behavior and crime.

ThoughtFox discussing information is different than just useing it as an excuse to bash the McCanns. It can be anything and everything, and is often cruel and unfair. From what they say to what they don't say, what they look like, or don't look like. What they wear or don't wear. Where they've been or haven't been, or done, haven't done, etc. They really can't win, it's all attacked.
Where is the balance?

And your view of the PLE leaking rumours to the press that later turn out to be untrue, as well as very destructive, is lot a different than mine.
I doubt the UK or US police would take things that far.....Or more importantly, be allowed to.

I don't believe in whitewashing people either.
The McCanns are not perfect, just human like the rest of us.
And they may be innocent.....Of everything but leaving their children alone.

I did notice how the police tracked down the "suspect".
But I don't think the McCanns "insisted" he was the abductor". Only that he may be.
Strange how the PLE are so sure he is the same man the witness saw. As I understand it they haven't ever intervieved her.
So I will wait to hear if she confirms he is the same man.

 

[april4sky]

Okay. What lies???

Since no one here knows, and I am not meaning to be difficult, but why do you choose to beleive they are not lying about the abduction with no evidence?

I can tell you at least from my perspective, based on their actions, words, representations and behavior I do not beleive them. I find the debate diffucult due to the fact that it seems all I base my thoughts on you will declair either a: lie (how can you know) ;rumor (we all know that possibility); or leak ( Which cannot be cast aside as a lie)
To borrow others questions can you debate these without relying on the above crutches?

What do you think about the defamation of Character of Robert Murat?

The McCanns didn't see the guy(Bundleman), how do they know he's (the pigfarmer) not the same person?

Rino, the PLE have admitted leaking damaging rumours about the McCanns to the Portuguese press knowing they were untrue. If you search back on this thread you should find the links where named PLE confirmed this.

I don't know if Madeleine was abducted or not. And nor does anyone else here.
We have seen no evidence to support either option.

I don't know what to think of Robert Murat. The witnesses may be right, or mistaken. There are a few different people who say they saw him that night, not just the McCanns friends.
He still may be completely innocent.
It's even possible he said he was home all evening because he didn't want to get involved. As people do. Maybe lied about being home and is stuck with this story. We also heard there was a phone call....could be another rumour....between him and the Russian which I think he's also denied.
As I said, I don't know what to think about Murat.

 

[Salem]

I don't know what to think of Robert Murat. The witnesses may be right, or mistaken. There are a few different people who say they saw him that night, not just the McCanns friends.
He still may be completely innocent.
It's even possible he said he was home all evening because he didn't want to get involved. As people do. Maybe lied about being home and is stuck with this story. We also heard there was a phone call....could be another rumour....between him and the Russian which I think he's also denied.
As I said, I don't know what to think about Murat.

April4 - I'm going to agree with you in the case of Murat, even though we are on different sides of the fence regarding the McCanns. There was a reported phone call between Murat and the Russian, which they both denied, but phone records confirmed. This has never been explained.

Murat's first alibi about where he was that night was different from the story that he was at home all night. He changed his story early on and it has been consistently reported since then that "he claims he was at home that night." This change in story has never been adequately addressed in my opinion.

While there appear to be several witnesses that say they saw him the night Maddie disappeared, there are also at least 2 witnesses that say they WERE there and they did not see him. One is the husband of the Irish family that says they also saw "bundleman" but that it was NOT Murat and he knows that because he knew Murat and would have spoken to Murat if it would have been Murat. There was another witnesses that was at the resort that night helping in the search that claims he knows Murat and he did not see Murat all night.

Murat's friend, "Tuck" appears in at least one picture (and maybe more, I have to go check again) of Gerry and the children at the park or beach. I think this is strange and have not heard a plausible explanation as of yet.

I am not willing to call Murat innocent at this point. There have been rumors that there may be some connection between Murat and the McCanns....... while I think this is far fetched, I'm not ruling it out yet.

Also, it has been reported that Murat acted as an interpreter for the police on cases prior to Maddie's disappearance, but that the police were actually looking at Murat suspiciously on the Maddie case before the "warning" from the journalist. This information has faded to the background, but again, I don't think it has been adequately addressed.

I don't think Murat should be taken off the plate just yet. Not until PLE is assured that these little "inconsistencies" have been addressed and there are reasonabe explanations that have nothing to do with Maddie.

:twocents: :twocents: This is so long - I figured it was my 4 cents worth

Salem

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

April4 - I'm going to agree with you in the case of Murat, even though we are on different sides of the fence regarding the McCanns. There was a reported phone call between Murat and the Russian, which they both denied, but phone records confirmed. This has never been explained...snipped for space...

:twocents: :twocents: This is so long - I figured it was my 4 cents worth

Salem

Excellent points Salem. As you point out, there are obviously a few unanswered questions regarding Murat. I still wonder about the hidden under ground basement room in his Villa. Of course, it was only reported via the media, so we don't know if it really exists, but still, seemed a little creepy at the time.

 

[colomom]

 

[april4sky]

April4 - I'm going to agree with you in the case of Murat, even though we are on different sides of the fence regarding the McCanns. There was a reported phone call between Murat and the Russian, which they both denied, but phone records confirmed. This has never been explained.

Murat's first alibi about where he was that night was different from the story that he was at home all night. He changed his story early on and it has been consistently reported since then that "he claims he was at home that night." This change in story has never been adequately addressed in my opinion.

While there appear to be several witnesses that say they saw him the night Maddie disappeared, there are also at least 2 witnesses that say they WERE there and they did not see him. One is the husband of the Irish family that says they also saw "bundleman" but that it was NOT Murat and he knows that because he knew Murat and would have spoken to Murat if it would have been Murat. There was another witnesses that was at the resort that night helping in the search that claims he knows Murat and he did not see Murat all night.

Murat's friend, "Tuck" appears in at least one picture (and maybe more, I have to go check again) of Gerry and the children at the park or beach. I think this is strange and have not heard a plausible explanation as of yet.

I am not willing to call Murat innocent at this point. There have been rumors that there may be some connection between Murat and the McCanns....... while I think this is far fetched, I'm not ruling it out yet.

Also, it has been reported that Murat acted as an interpreter for the police on cases prior to Maddie's disappearance, but that the police were actually looking at Murat suspiciously on the Maddie case before the "warning" from the journalist. This information has faded to the background, but again, I don't think it has been adequately addressed.

I don't think Murat should be taken off the plate just yet. Not until PLE is assured that these little "inconsistencies" have been addressed and there are reasonabe explanations that have nothing to do with Maddie.

:twocents: :twocents: This is so long - I figured it was my 4 cents worth

Salem

Thanks Salem, great post.

I go back and forth on Murat because of the questions you raise.
I also feel sorry for him in case he is innocent.

 

[ThoughtFox]

Is that real? Who is it?

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Don't be teasing us!

Who in the world are those men?

 

[gord]

His name is Joaquim Agostinho - a cockle picker who lives about 90kms from the area -

He is a double to the sketch - doesnt mean he has anythng to do with anything , but at the very least he should be interviewed - alibis checked you know some basic police work that sort of thing

there is more witnesses coming forward now about strange individuals approaching children

This is the sort of investigative police work that should have happened from day one - better late than never - rather than the case now seems to be handled by Fleet street Journos

 

[Gatinho]

Hmmm Gord - that's exactly the reaction that this story is supposed to promote.

a) How do you know that this wasn't investigated earlier?
b) Why should the police interview all dodgy looking cockle pickers in a 90 km radius
c) If all the evidence points elsewhere why would the police bother with this
d) JT has only recently compared her sketch to this so if that is so why did she not give his description earlier.

Sorry I think its baloney.