The Case, so far...

[AfterMidnight]

Yes the notion of a sting has been mooted before. However, I think it would surely have been better planned than this e.g. police would have been watching ready to move in not relying on intermittent checks from parents with alcohol on board!

One would think so, I agree. However, who was the man in the stairwell? Why were the staff at the Tapas restaurant/bar? keeping such good tabs on the comings and goings of the doctors? Why was Murat around and why did he lie about it? Who was the man on the beach in the picture?

 

[Morag]

(snip) Who was the man on the beach in the picture?

The bald man on the beach in the picture would seem to be Tuck Price. At any rate, he looks just like Tuck Price.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459316&in_page_id=1770

Murat's gay American designer friend, Tuck Price, 43, who flitted in and out of the room during our interview, hardly helps his cause.

"When this is all over, I hope he makes a buck or two out of it," Price said shamelessly. "He bloody deserves it."

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

No why would I be?:waitasec: Because I dont think they were involved and because I dont agree with some of the vitriolic posts????? :waitasec:

Because you speak of them as they are your dearest friends or family. I don't know many people who would so adamantly support suspected child killers unless they where blood related or paid off. LOL It's nice that you support 2 people who you have never met in your life. Maybe I should follow your ethics.

 

[daffodil]

Because you speak of them as they are your dearest friends or family. I don't know many people who would so adamantly support suspected child killers unless they where blood related or paid off. LOL It's nice that you support 2 people who you have never met in your life. Maybe I should follow your ethics.

I dont think I have ever spoken of them in that way :waitasec: I simply have not seen or heard anything that convinces me they killed Madeleine and until I do I will not join in with the sarcasm and abuse and name calling and tearing apart every little thing they say and projecting my own meaning onto their words.If it turns out they are involved then of course they will deserve all they get but until that time I will reserve judgement.

 

[philamena]

Because you speak of them as they are your dearest friends or family. I don't know many people who would so adamantly support suspected child killers unless they where blood related or paid off. LOL It's nice that you support 2 people who you have never met in your life. Maybe I should follow your ethics.

Hummmm I support them because I still don't see solid evidence that shows that that killed Maddie. I've never acted as if I knew them.

Their supporters are seen as 'friends'.
Their opposer's are seen as witch hunters.

 

[AfterMidnight]

Because you speak of them as they are your dearest friends or family. I don't know many people who would so adamantly support suspected child killers unless they where blood related or paid off. LOL It's nice that you support 2 people who you have never met in your life. Maybe I should follow your ethics.

I've seen no proof of the McCann's guilt. All I've seen are sensational headlines in rags that get retracted the next day.

Everyone who isn't baying for blood isn't a relative of the McCanns or paid off. I resent the implications.

 

[april4sky]

I dont think I have ever spoken of them in that way :waitasec: I simply have not seen or heard anything that convinces me they killed Madeleine and until I do I will not join in with the sarcasm and abuse and name calling and tearing apart every little thing they say and projecting my own meaning onto their words.If it turns out they are involved then of course they will deserve all they get but until that time I will reserve judgement.

Well said and absolutely right daffodil!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: And I'm not related to them either!!!
I just don't like to see unfair attacks on anyone without "evidence" of guilt....Simple as that.

 

[docwho3]

I dont think I have ever spoken of them in that way :waitasec: I simply have not seen or heard anything that convinces me they killed Madeleine and until I do I will not join in with the sarcasm and abuse and name calling and tearing apart every little thing they say and projecting my own meaning onto their words.If it turns out they are involved then of course they will deserve all they get but until that time I will reserve judgement.

I agree.

As long as L.E. investigating the case name them as suspects I may look at the possibility that the parents were involved in the disappearance of their daughter, and since the crime stats favor such a thing, but I too will refrain from the mean comments about the parents especially while I do not yet know they were guilty of a crime in the disappearance. I for one appreciate your being reasonable about that aspect of the case.

 

[gord]

Another non relative of Gerry and Kate here

I refuse to use inflamable terms such as suspected child killers against all these people especialy G & K

No-one has been charged - we have three arguidos - which is a legal status in Porugal to nallow people to be questioned -

Sure they could be guilty I completly allow the posibility , but until I see some firm evidence forming , maybe even the PJ charging someone then I am firmly in the path of innocent until proven guilty / It has now been 6 moths and we seem to be exactly the same place as we were back in July . The FSS have had the DNA samples for months - surely something they can start to move on this either way .

Of course things take time , this is stretching things .

I welcome the visit of the PJ to the UK , but I am bit dismayed to see the esact questions they are supposed to be seeking answers to are splashed all over the papers -

Maybe this next fortnight will push the case along , so we can actually find out what happened to Maddie - but somehow I doubt it.

 

[SleuthMom]

Hummmm I support them because I still don't see solid evidence that shows that that killed Maddie. I've never acted as if I knew them.

Hmmmm...I thought at least you would sit on the fence and "wait" for the evidence or for the police to solve the case, when you are saying you are supporting them means you are convinced of their innocence. Are you?

 

[daffodil]

Hmmmm...I thought at least you would sit on the fence and "wait" for the evidence or for the police to solve the case, when you are saying you are supporting them means you are convinced of their innocence. Are you?

Hmmmm....I thought at least you would sit on the fence and "wait" for the evidence or for the police to solve the case,when you are saying that you are NOT supporting them means you are convinced of their GUILT.Are you?


Works both ways doesnt it?

 

[Rino]

Hummmm I support them because I still don't see solid evidence that shows that that killed Maddie. I've never acted as if I knew them.

Their supporters are seen as 'friends'.
Their opposer's are seen as witch hunters.

I have not seen any solid evidence that shows that Maddie was taken by a stranger. There is solid evidence the dogs found someone died in that apt. Police have ruled out another death taking place there. I have a hard time believing a killer took his victim.

I oppose anyone who harms children, and they have not been cleared by any one but their "friends" - old and new.

 

[AfterMidnight]

I have not seen any solid evidence that shows that Maddie was taken by a stranger. There is solid evidence the dogs found someone died in that apt. Police have ruled out another death taking place there. I have a hard time believing a killer took his victim.

I oppose anyone who harms children, and they have not been cleared by any one but their "friends" - old and new.

So far we've seen NO solid evidence of ANYTHING, stranger OR parents.

The dogs scented something, but I believe the accuracy rate is roughly 50%. As for the police ruling out another death, how in 'ell would they know? Did they ask the owners? Portugal was a dictatorship, remember? I'll just betcha LOTS of people were disappeared during those years. Would the police keep records of that? This may be a newer building, I don't know, but no one can say for sure no deaths have taken place in it, even natural ones. Aside from that, I don't believe a word the Portugese LE say. They've proved quite inadequate to the task. Maybe one of them brought the cadaver smell in with them.

Everyone "opposes" people who hurt children, but before anyone can be blamed most people require proof - actually, so does the law in most countries.

 

[april4sky]

I have not seen any solid evidence that shows that Maddie was taken by a stranger. There is solid evidence the dogs found someone died in that apt. Police have ruled out another death taking place there. I have a hard time believing a killer took his victim.

I oppose anyone who harms children, and they have not been cleared by any one but their "friends" - old and new.

Just because you don't believe there was an abduction... doesn't mean it didn't happen. Remember the PLE botched the initial forensic search.
There is no confirmation of "solid evidence" of Madeleine or any other dead body in the apartment.
At this time none of us know what the dogs were reacting to.

I oppose anyone harming children too....So I am definately with you there.
But I also believe in innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Rino]

Just because you don't believe there was an abduction... doesn't mean it didn't happen. Remember the PLE botched the initial forensic search.
There is no confirmation of "solid evidence" of Madeleine or any other dead body in the apartment.
At this time none of us know what the dogs were reacting to.

I oppose anyone harming children too....So I am definately with you there.
But I also believe in innocent until proven guilty.

And just because you believe they didn't harm her does not mean they didn't. The facts of this case so far are few, but they don't serve imo to clear them.

I disagree with you about the dogs, they reacted to what they were trained to react to and the McCanns agreed. That is why they offered up various reasons for the detection.

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard in a court of law, not the moral obligation when the evidence suggests otherwise. On their word I beleived them innocent and on their words and actions I know find them dishonest and suspect.

If they know what happened and never go to trial - are they innocent? OJ Simpson comes to mind, being found not guilty do you beleive he is innocent?

 

[Barnaby]

Well said Rino.

 

[Morag]

Of course, innocent unless proven guilty applies in the law. But if we look back on many of the forums here (Natalee Holloway comes to mind), it is apparent that some posters who are more than happy to give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt were quite eager to believe other suspects (Joran and the Kalpoes, for example) guilty with little or no evidence. People who believe the McCanns to be innocent despite evidence to the contrary are not defending child killers. Nor were those who thought J2K innocent indicating their approval of making teenagers disappear.

 

[april4sky]

And just because you believe they didn't harm her does not mean they didn't. The facts of this case so far are few, but they don't serve imo to clear them.

I disagree with you about the dogs, they reacted to what they were trained to react to and the McCanns agreed. That is why they offered up various reasons for the detection.

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard in a court of law, not the moral obligation when the evidence suggests otherwise. On their word I beleived them innocent and on their words and actions I know find them dishonest and suspect.

If they know what happened and never go to trial - are they innocent? OJ Simpson comes to mind, being found not guilty do you beleive he is innocent?

I agree the facts of this case are few and far between which is why it makes such a nonesense of all the wild accusations.
As for not being cleared...They haven't been charged with anything for the simple reason there is no evidence against them.

As for OJ. He was charged and tried. And Yes I believe he was guilty.
I may not always agree with a Jury. Some people walk for various reasons when they shouldn't.
But my conclusion in OJ's case was based on "evidence" presented in court.

 

[SleuthMom]

Hmmmm....I thought at least you would sit on the fence and "wait" for the evidence or for the police to solve the case,when you are saying that you are NOT supporting them means you are convinced of their GUILT.Are you?


Works both ways doesnt it?

Of course it works both ways, the difference is that I am not going to state I am sitting on the fence when I am clearly not.

 

[SleuthMom]

Morag:

it is apparent that some posters who are more than happy to give the McCanns the benefit of the doubt were quite eager to believe other suspects (Joran and the Kalpoes, for example) guilty with little or no evidence.

:clap: