Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

iamwhoiam

goat2 wrote: »

if i have put anything offensive in there, please feel free to delete and i do apologise if i did offend

And the same goes for my posts .,If I offend please remove but I do try to be objective and see all sides .,

_feedback_

biko wrote: »

Ok, this thread has been in CT territory quite a while with allegations this way and that and some heavy speculation, wild guesses and finger pointing.
As it's gone too far for even CT now I'll reopen it for now but it may get locked again, if so then CT will be the place to start a fresh thread on this.

Don't know about anyone else, but I'd reckon it'd be better off closed. It has gone round in circles for the past while and wont develop any more decent input IMO.

Was a very interesting thread though.

iamwhoiam

elviscostello wrote: »

Don't know about anyone else, but I'd reckon it'd be better off closed. It has gone round in circles for the past while and wont develop any more decent input IMO.

Was a very interesting thread though.

But no one has to read it or join in if they dont like the repetition .Maybe some will have more to say in time or the book will reveal more .I havent read the book nor will I , but some have and might have something to say on the contents of it .
I would like it open and join in .

maebee

elviscostello wrote: »

Don't know about anyone else, but I'd reckon it'd be better off closed. It has gone round in circles for the past while and wont develop any more decent input IMO.

Was a very interesting thread though.

I agree that the thread was going around in circles and was becoming repetitive but I think it should be kept open as there should be developments in the near future, seeing as SY are now on the case. In the meantime, the McCanns launched another libel action yesterday:

http://duartelevy.eu/2011/06/16/maddies-parents-sue-goucha-sargento-and-hernani-carvalho/

Manuel Luis Goucha, Paulo Sargento and Hernâni Carvalho have been made arguidos yesterday, Wednesday, in a libel action started by Kate and Gerry McCann.
The criminal complaint, initiated by the couple’s lawyer in Portugal, also affects the TVI administration. It was during a talk show broadcasted by TVI that the alleged crime has occurred.
The psychologist Paulo Sargento – arguido since yesterday – confirmed the information and stated “that he did not speak yesterday but that he intends to do so during the proceedings because he has knowledge of elements which may lead to the reopening of the inquiry related to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.”
An interesting detail is that the process is not under the law of secrecy of justice.
A source close to Maddie’s parents has confirmed the complaint and added that “other complaints may still occur”.

Let's hope that PS does have knowledge of something which will lead to a re-opening of the case.

iamwhoiam

maebee wrote: »

I
:

http://duartelevy.eu/2011/06/16/maddies-parents-sue-goucha-sargento-and-hernani-carvalho/





Let's hope that PS does have knowledge of something which will lead to a re-opening of the case.

I read that link and am none the wiser. Are the Mc Canns sueing again ? Is it a TV station this time ?

maebee

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Are the Mc Canns sueing again ? Is it a TV station this time ?

They are yes. Manuel Luís Goucha is a TV Presenter, Hernâni Carvalho is a journalist and Paulo Sargento is a Criminal Psychologist. I don't know the views of the first 2 chaps but I do know that Sargento does not believe the McCanns' story. It looks like his scepticism will land him in court with the McCanns. This is what these parents do to people who do not buy their story. They sue them.

dark crystal

iamwhoiam wrote: »

But no one has to read it or join in if they dont like the repetition .Maybe some will have more to say in time or the book will reveal more .I havent read the book nor will I , but some have and might have something to say on the contents of it .
I would like it open and join in .

You see, this is where posters who claim to be objective and see all sides fall down for me.

You haven't read the McCanns's side of the story, but probably have read many snippets from Amaral's book (courtesy of the many links and quotes provided by certain posters). This is where the thread has become pretty one sided in my view.

I know Audrey has read the McCann's book and the quotes she posted from it were pretty much treated with contempt, yet the quotes posted from Amaral's book are thanked repeatedly and used as a rope to hang the McCann's with.

I don't know, unless any new real and concrete evidence comes to light from either side, I don't see how it's fair to keep repeatedly insinuating the McCanns had a hand in the death of their daughter.

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

. This is what these parents do to people who do not buy their story. They sue them.

What did they actually say about the McCanns?

If they are in someway slandering them, why shouldn't they be sued?

goat2

i would like to have this thread kept open, i am interested in madelines case and am hoping that she will be found, so that anything that come up in the media that i may miss, i will be able to get updates here, i think the mccannes are doing their best to find her, and hope they keep going strong.

sensormatic

i is waiting for the film as i hate books until then my judgement is witheld

Kess73

maebee wrote: »

They are yes. Manuel Luís Goucha is a TV Presenter, Hernâni Carvalho is a journalist and Paulo Sargento is a Criminal Psychologist. I don't know the views of the first 2 chaps but I do know that Sargento does not believe the McCanns' story. It looks like his scepticism will land him in court with the McCanns. This is what these parents do to people who do not buy their story. They sue them.

I would be curious to see if Sargento actually has something that could cause the reopening of the case or if he is just blowing smoke to try and avoid losing in court to the McCanns.


If he does indeed have something that can get the case reopened then surely the McCanns should want that, and it would be odd for them to try and stop anything that would result in the reopening of their little girl's case.

But if it is a thing that Sargento is spoofing, then I hope he gets put through the wringer in court and gets nailed for it.

Mistyeyes321

To be fair Dark Crystal, Audrey, Mrs Bynes & many more poster's here have given as good as they have recieved!
They have added as much to this thread as anyone else. I have seen snippett's posted from the book posted by Audrey & have read them. I haven't commented on them because Imo this is just what Kate Mccann is saying & mean's nothing in the grand scheme of things! Just the same as the Detectives Book I haven't read either & don't intend too! I have been given link's from both sides of this Case & have appreciated them all & finally most people here all want the samething & that's to find out what happened to this Little Girl! it doesn't matter who believe's such & such is telling the truth because none of us no for sure.! I personally think the Mcs have told lies & the PJ have also told lies. Again this is just my own personal Opinion which i'm entitled to as is everyone else. If Kate Mccann or the Detective think only their opinion's count! Well their both wrong & it doesn't matter if this thread is closed or not, It isn't going to stop people having their own Opinion's & voiceing them!:)

iamwhoiam

dark crystal wrote: »

You see, this is where posters who claim to be objective and see all sides fall down for me.

You haven't read the McCanns's side of the story, but probably have read many snippets from Amaral's book (courtesy of the many links and quotes provided by certain posters). This is where the thread has become pretty one sided in my view.

I know Audrey has read the McCann's book and the quotes she posted from it were pretty much treated with contempt, yet the quotes posted from Amaral's book are thanked repeatedly and used as a rope to hang the McCann's with.

I don't know, unless any new real and concrete evidence comes to light from either side, I don't see how it's fair to keep repeatedly insinuating the McCanns had a hand in the death of their daughter.

Yes you are right and what I meant to say was I wont buy the book. .I will read the snippets posted here and take interest in what they have to say ,
I have no clue if Madeleine is in fact dead .I am presuming the little pet is infortunately .But please dont put words in my mouth that I have not said . I did not insinuate anything ,I do have an opinion and will voice it as an opinion only .if I treated anyones quotes with contempt I would think its up to them to point this out to me .
What I will say is that reading the book will still not make me believe everything Kate says as I have already noted she and Gerry to have lied on the LLS about the window .So I take it with a pinch of salt as I do Amarals notes .
I really wish the thread wasnt a personal " who is more right " game as I think everyone has a valid contribution to make . I am happy to listen to all sides but on one point I wil admit I wont concede .That is that it was within a safe distance from the Tapas bar to 5a , I saw it and it wasnt .
Other than that I will disscuss and listen and am happy to hear all views ,

Mistyeyes321

maebee wrote: »

I agree that the thread was going around in circles and was becoming repetitive but I think it should be kept open as there should be developments in the near future, seeing as SY are now on the case. In the meantime, the McCanns launched another libel action yesterday:

http://duartelevy.eu/2011/06/16/maddies-parents-sue-goucha-sargento-and-hernani-carvalho/





Let's hope that PS does have knowledge of something which will lead to a re-opening of the case.

Please excuse my ignorance here maebee.:o Who are these people?:eek: & what have they done wrong?...In your opinion obviously?:)

thebullkf

dark crystal wrote: »

You see, this is where posters who claim to be objective and see all sides fall down for me.

You haven't read the McCanns's side of the story, but probably have read many snippets from Amaral's book (courtesy of the many links and quotes provided by certain posters). This is where the thread has become pretty one sided in my view.

I know Audrey has read the McCann's book and the quotes she posted from it were pretty much treated with contempt, yet the quotes posted from Amaral's book are thanked repeatedly and used as a rope to hang the McCann's with.

I don't know, unless any new real and concrete evidence comes to light from either side, I don't see how it's fair to keep repeatedly insinuating the McCanns had a hand in the death of their daughter.

they abandoned their kids nightly, have not apologised publicly.....criticise everything that disagrees with their version of events....making a mint out of this tragedy.

refused drug and lie detector tests,deleted calls from their phones, wrongly accused others without any eveidene. .. yet when someone dares question them, they sue.....

what am i missing....

Mistyeyes321

maebee wrote: »

They are yes. Manuel Luís Goucha is a TV Presenter, Hernâni Carvalho is a journalist and Paulo Sargento is a Criminal Psychologist. I don't know the views of the first 2 chaps but I do know that Sargento does not believe the McCanns' story. It looks like his scepticism will land him in court with the McCanns. This is what these parents do to people who do not buy their story. They sue them.

Sorry I didn't see this Maebee:o Forget a reply to my question I have just googled Paulo Sargento & found a Article where he is just saying answer the 48 question's Kate unless ive missed something...From what I read all the Tapas 8 have already answered these question's I didn't know that till now...I thought it was a few of them who hadn't answered these Question's!

maebee

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Please excuse my ignorance here maebee.:o Who are these people?:eek: & what have they done wrong?...In your opinion obviously?:)

Hi Misty, I only know what I've read on the Duarte Levy link. The McCanns are sueing them over something they said/implied on a TV programme about the case. Perhaps they said that they thought Madeleine was dead, as Amaral did and they sued him for stating that. I only ever saw one of them, Paulo Sargento, the Criminal Profiler, in a clip from a tv programme on Youtube and he said he didn't believe the McCanns' story. Guess we'll have to wait til the court case to find out.

mrsbyrne

maebee wrote: »

They are yes. Manuel Luís Goucha is a TV Presenter, Hernâni Carvalho is a journalist and Paulo Sargento is a Criminal Psychologist. I don't know the views of the first 2 chaps but I do know that Sargento does not believe the McCanns' story. It looks like his scepticism will land him in court with the McCanns. This is what these parents do to people who do not buy their story. They sue them.

Actually, its not a civil action its a criminal action.
So, Maebee, you are saying that if a TV host and his guests insinuated on prime time TV that you, maebee, were responsible for the disappearance of your child and that that child was dead and that you covered this up and persuaded others to cover up as well, that you would allow this to happen and you would do nothing to redress the balance?
you would not think that giving the viewing public the impression that your daughter was dead would give that viewing public cause to suppose that she was dead, and as such no further searching need take place? And that this, in fact, was not in the best interests of your child?
You, maebee, would just sit back and allow anybody at all to say anything at all about you your family your friends and colleagues?
You would not feel that your silence implied that you were in some way guilty of these accusations??? How very strange!!
But its just the way it is. The McCanns cant win, can they? For 4 years the McCann haters mantra has been "I'm entitled to my opinion, however wicked cruel and ignorant it may be, and you can sue me if you dont like it!" Then, when they do sue theyre a "greedy money-grabbing pair". So its a win win situation for the McCann hater, and i think this is what keeps most of them hanging on, the capacity to post endless, bottomless wild speculation at best, and vile perverted poison at worst, in the sure and certain knowledge that even if Madeleine turned up safe and well tomorrow, you can still say "well, they should still be done for neglect."
I resisted the temptation to post in this thread, as it sort of demeans me to be a part of this endless merry-go-round of repetitive nonsense. But when i spot a poster criticising another human beings right to defend themselves, and against such scurrilous accusations, well, it would test the patience of JOb, it really would.

maebee

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Actually, its not a civil action its a criminal action.
So, Maebee, you are saying that if a TV host and his guests insinuated on prime time TV that you, maebee, were responsible for the disappearance of your child and that that child was dead and that you covered this up and persuaded others to cover up as well, that you would allow this to happen and you would do nothing to redress the balance?

I, maebee would not have lied about the disappearance of my daughter nor would I have refused to answer the questions of those who were trying to find my daughter.

you would not think that giving the viewing public the impression that your daughter was dead would give that viewing public cause to suppose that she was dead, and as such no further searching need take place? And that this, in fact, was not in the best interests of your child?

Unfortunately, it's highly likely that Madeleine is no longer alive. The dogs gave a very strong indication of that.

You, maebee, would just sit back and allow anybody at all to say anything at all about you your family your friends and colleagues?
You would not feel that your silence implied that you were in some way guilty of these accusations??? How very strange!!

I would not be sitting back. I would be so busy searching for my daughter that I wouldn't have the time to sue anybody. The McCanns NEVER physically searched for their missing daughter. How very strange is that?



But its just the way it is. The McCanns cant win, can they? For 4 years the McCann haters mantra has been "I'm entitled to my opinion, however wicked cruel and ignorant it may be, and you can sue me if you dont like it!" Then, when they do sue theyre a "greedy money-grabbing pair". So its a win win situation for the McCann hater, and i think this is what keeps most of them hanging on, the capacity to post endless, bottomless wild speculation at best, and vile perverted poison at worst, in the sure and certain knowledge that even if Madeleine turned up safe and well tomorrow, you can still say "well, they should still be done for neglect."
I resisted the temptation to post in this thread, as it sort of demeans me to be a part of this endless merry-go-round of repetitive nonsense. But when i spot a poster criticising another human beings right to defend themselves, and against such scurrilous accusations, well, it would test the patience of JOb, it really would.

I hope you're not calling me a McCann hater because I'm not. I just do not believe them. That does not make me a hater and I have never ever called them a "greedy money-grabbing pair". Nowhere have I ever said that they killed their daughter. I believe that she died as a result of an accident and that they covered it up.

iamwhoiam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Actually, its not a civil action its a criminal action.
So, Maebee, you are saying that if a TV host and his guests insinuated on prime time TV that you, maebee, were responsible for the disappearance of your child and that that child was dead and that you covered this up and persuaded others to cover up as well, that you would allow this to happen and you would do nothing to redress the balance?
you would not think that giving the viewing public the impression that your daughter was dead would give that viewing public cause to suppose that she was dead, and as such no further searching need take place? And that this, in fact, was not in the best interests of your child?
You, maebee, would just sit back and allow anybody at all to say anything at all about you your family your friends and colleagues?
You would not feel that your silence implied that you were in some way guilty of these accusations??? How very strange!!
But its just the way it is. The McCanns cant win, can they? For 4 years the McCann haters mantra has been "I'm entitled to my opinion, however wicked cruel and ignorant it may be, and you can sue me if you dont like it!" Then, when they do sue theyre a "greedy money-grabbing pair". So its a win win situation for the McCann hater, and i think this is what keeps most of them hanging on, the capacity to post endless, bottomless wild speculation at best, and vile perverted poison at worst, in the sure and certain knowledge that even if Madeleine turned up safe and well tomorrow, you can still say "well, they should still be done for neglect."
I resisted the temptation to post in this thread, as it sort of demeans me to be a part of this endless merry-go-round of repetitive nonsense. But when i spot a poster criticising another human beings right to defend themselves, and against such scurrilous accusations, well, it would test the patience of JOb, it really would.

Dont you think that the very reason that people carry on discussing this story is because the Mc Canns encourage it . They court the media and have done from day one ( within hours infact ) .When the media loose interest they find another reason to have have Madeleine on the front pages .When the media dare to critise they sue , once again bringing Madeleine to the front covers .
Now in my opinion they are entitled to that and if they so wish entitled to keep Madeleine on the front pages .But in my opinion they then have to realize that people will once again have an opinion and once again voice it .
I see a book ,an interview , a talk show a newspaper article and am once again reminded of the story and once again say my piece .They cant have it every way , they want it remembered so have to deal with us remembering that all was not rosy and voice that . They cant have that only those who are convinced that Madeleine was taken out the window have a voice . There are many who are not at all confinced and who will also be there to remember .And so it goes , some are completely willing to go along with what Kate says and take it as gospel , some are not .,And we are all entitled to our opinion and to voice it .

mrsbyrne

But your not allowing them any right of reply maebee, are you? you are saying that, OK, your not a McCann hater, but you are critical of the McCanns, will you agree with that? that you do not accept any of the McCanns version of the story at all ? and that you accept, without hesitation, the word of G Amaral, a convicted criminal, a policeman removed from this case by his own superiors? Will you accept that your posts imply, at least, and Im being generous here, that you do not think that the McCanns have the right to defend themselves against the slings and arrows, and by association, Madeleine?
Also, im interested to know, why you felt that the dogs evidence is worth so many mentions, when the Portuguese authorities felt it was too unreliable to use in any prosecution they might take against the McCanns? It wouldnt hold up in a court of law, but theres no smoke without fire, isnt that right? And thats good enough for you, correct?
This is the case that just keeps on giving, isnt it, really? A pitchforkers dream, in fact. (Im not accusing you of pitchforking)Any difficult questions, such as how the McCanns did it why, when and where are easily glossed over, with, you will admit im sure, laughable conspiracy theories. for instance, any implication that it would be preposterous for guilty people to keep their faces in the public eye for so long, and with such intensity is swept away with a wave of a dismissive hand. Likkewise, the suggestion that such a large group of people could be sworn to secrecy over such a horrendous matter for such a long time.... got to go, scampi burning!

DerekWaters

mrsbyrne wrote: »

But your not allowing them any right of reply maebee, are you? you are saying that, OK, your not a McCann hater, but you are critical of the McCanns, will you agree with that? that you do not accept any of the McCanns version of the story at all ? and that you accept, without hesitation, the word of G Amaral, a convicted criminal, a policeman removed from this case by his own superiors? Will you accept that your posts imply, at least, and Im being generous here, that you do not think that the McCanns have the right to defend themselves against the slings and arrows, and by association, Madeleine?
Also, im interested to know, why you felt that the dogs evidence is worth so many mentions, when the Portuguese authorities felt it was too unreliable to use in any prosecution they might take against the McCanns? It wouldnt hold up in a court of law, but theres no smoke without fire, isnt that right? And thats good enough for you, correct?



This is the case that just keeps on giving, isnt it, really? A pitchforkers dream, in fact. (Im not accusing you of pitchforking)Any difficult questions, such as how the McCanns did it why, when and where are easily glossed over, with, you will admit im sure, laughable conspiracy theories. for instance, any implication that it would be preposterous for guilty people to keep their faces in the public eye for so long, and with such intensity is swept away with a wave of a dismissive hand. Likkewise, the suggestion that such a large group of people could be sworn to secrecy over such a horrendous matter for such a long time.... got to go, scampi burning!

A pitchforkers dream........

What you dismiss as a conspiracy theory is actually the findings of a joint investigation by the portugese and British police, something you always fail to mention. The actual files are available for everybody to read!!!!

your last paragraph is absolute waffle as there has been plenty of other cases where the perpetrators have courted the media, check back through this thread links have been provided.

Silver Moon

The McCanns make me want to vomit and I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. And even if I didn't think they are totally responsible for the disappearance of their daughter they would still make me skin crawl every time I have the misfotune to see them on telly or hear them on the radio or read about them in the press. They are a pathetic excuse for parents - as are the rest of their 'friends' who have gotten away very lightly with their own neglect and their obstruction of the official police investigation into the disappearance of totally innocent young child. They should all hang their heads in shame.

mrsbyrne

Silver Moon wrote: »

The McCanns make me want to vomit and I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. And even if I didn't think they are totally responsible for the disappearance of their daughter they would still make me skin crawl every time I have the misfotune to see them on telly or hear them on the radio or read about them in the press. They are a pathetic excuse for parents - as are the rest of their 'friends' who have gotten away very lightly with their own neglect and their obstruction of the official police investigation into the disappearance of totally innocent young child. They should all hang their heads in shame.

...and, so, your honour, i rest my case...

maebee

mrsbyrne wrote: »

But your not allowing them any right of reply maebee, are you?

I don't know what you mean by I'm "not allowing them a right of reply" Imo, they've been exercising their right of reply for the past 4 years. Do you mean that the right of reply = to sue?

you are saying that, OK, your not a McCann hater, but you are critical of the McCanns, will you agree with that?

Absolutely. I would be very critical of parents who continued to leave their children in a strange apartment in a strange country night after night, even after their child asked them "Where were you when we were crying last night?"

that you do not accept any of the McCanns version of the story at all ? and that you accept, without hesitation, the word of G Amaral, a convicted criminal, a policeman removed from this case by his own superiors? Will you accept that your posts imply, at least, and Im being generous here, that you do not think that the McCanns have the right to defend themselves against the slings and arrows, and by association, Madeleine?

No I don't accept the McCanns' version of the story at all and I do accept the word (of those who know more about the case than we do) Amaral, Chief Inspector Tavares Almeida, Detective Sousa,
Dr Paulo Sargento, Forensic Psychologist, Francisco Moita Flores,
Carlos Anjos, the priest who said he was deceived by the McCanns, The British Police Liaison Officer who said he had arrested people for less. There are many more professionals who do not accept their version of events.

Also, im interested to know, why you felt that the dogs evidence is worth so many mentions, when the Portuguese authorities felt it was too unreliable to use in any prosecution they might take against the McCanns? It wouldnt hold up in a court of law, but theres no smoke without fire, isnt that right? And thats good enough for you, correct?

The dogs have never been wrong in over 200 cases. That is why I believe them. We don't know that the Pt Authorities felt their evidence was too unreliable.

This is the case that just keeps on giving, isnt it, really? A pitchforkers dream, in fact. (Im not accusing you of pitchforking)Any difficult questions, such as how the McCanns did it why, when and where are easily glossed over, with, you will admit im sure, laughable conspiracy theories.

I have no interest in pitchforkers. I am only interested in getting justice for this little girl, abandoned by her parents, night after night in a foreign country. I never said that "they did it". I do not believe that they pre-meditated her murder. I believe that Madeleine died accidentally in the apartment, probably from falling behind the sofa, where markers of her blood were found. The police and the Mark Warner manager confirmed that the couch had been moved from where it was when they started the holiday. I suspect the children were given something to keep them asleep while the parents wined and dined but Madeleine woke, probably dazed and died accidentally possibly by climbing on the couch and falling. For reasons best known to themselves, they concealed the body and invented the abduction story. After 4 years researching the case, this is my opinion.

for instance, any implication that it would be preposterous for guilty people to keep their faces in the public eye for so long, and with such intensity is swept away with a wave of a dismissive hand

.

It's not unheard of for guilty people to place themselves in the public eye. Joe O'Reilly, Ian Huntley, Susan Smith, to name a few. In their cases, they were in their own jurisdictions and caught relatively early.

Likewise, the suggestion that such a large group of people could be sworn to secrecy over such a horrendous matter for such a long time..

makes me believe that there was something not right within this group. I cannot post my thoughts on this as it may compromise boards.ie.

iamwhoiam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

...and, so, your honour, i rest my case...

And what case would that be ? That one person has an opinion that is not to your liking ? Not exactly a case really ,

dark crystal

thebullkf wrote: »

they abandoned their kids nightly, have not apologised publicly.....criticise everything that disagrees with their version of events....making a mint out of this tragedy.

refused drug and lie detector tests,deleted calls from their phones, wrongly accused others without any eveidene. .. yet when someone dares question them, they sue.....

what am i missing....

Do you know why the McCanns are taking legal action against these people? If not, then yes, you are missing something.

NO ONE has said they were right to leave their kids that evening, but they did and their daughter has gone. They owe no one an apology, except Madeleine. I certainly don't want to hear them begging the public at large for forgiveness, because it really isn't anyone else's place to forgive.

If they disagree with many of the police findings, perhaps it's because they believe the police have been barking up entirely the wrong tree this whole time and have not been targetting the right culprit/s. If they are indeed innocent, put yourself in their shoes.....would you not criticise such findings?

There were drug samples taken from Kate and the twins - no drugs of any kind were found in their hair samples.
Lie detector tests were more than likely vetoed by their lawyer and besides, such evidence is inadmissable in court.
Deleting calls is not a crime. Given the amount of messages and calls they must have received during the period, it is not a huge leap of faith to believe their mailboxes may easily have been full to capacity.

Robert Murat is reported to be suing 4 of the Tapas 7 for wrongly identifying him. The McCanns have the same rights as he does if they feel they were also wrongly accused.

Again, this is old ground we keep covering here....

Silver Moon

mrsbyrne wrote: »

...and, so, your honour, i rest my case...

i'm not going to lie - unlike the McCanns

Mistyeyes321

dark crystal wrote: »

Do you know why the McCanns are taking legal action against these people? If not, then yes, you are missing something.

NO ONE has said they were right to leave their kids that evening, but they did and their daughter has gone. They owe no one an apology, except Madeleine. I certainly don't want to hear them begging the public at large for forgiveness, because it really isn't anyone else's place to forgive.

If they disagree with many of the police findings, perhaps it's because they believe the police have been barking up entirely the wrong tree this whole time and have not been targetting the right culprit/s. If they are indeed innocent, put yourself in their shoes.....would you not criticise such findings?

There were drug samples taken from Kate and the twins - no drugs of any kind were found in their hair samples.
Lie detector tests were more than likely vetoed by their lawyer and besides, such evidence is inadmissable in court.
Deleting calls is not a crime. Given the amount of messages and calls they must have received during the period, it is not a huge leap of faith to believe their mailboxes may easily have been full to capacity.

Robert Murat is reported to be suing 4 of the Tapas 7 for wrongly identifying him. The McCanns have the same rights as he does if they feel they were also wrongly accused.

Again, this is old ground we keep covering here....

I'm missing it too DC I don't have a clue who these people are except what has been posted on this thread.!

I agree the Mcs don't owe anyone a apology just their child! I hope they will get the Chance to do just that! I

Now this is onething I don't understand, How would the Mcs be in a Position to judge how the PJ should run this Case?.! Maybe the Pj have made alot of Mistakes I wouldn't be surprised, But the very people who created this Situation really should be the last to be Pointing their Finger at anyone!

I asked regarding the Hair samples & was told ON THIS THREAD. the Mcs refused to have this done by the PJ. They did have it done some month's later I believe by a Private party so if that is true & I don't know if itis! Then why the long wait? Why didn't they just have it done straight away? it makes sense if you have nothing to hide to just get on & help the very people who are looking for your child.! The thing is most of the thing's that make the Mcs look guilty is of their own making,Kate refuses to answer the question;'s her own husband answered why?!

I can understand the Mcs deleting their phone records because as you say many many incoming messages, What I don't get & again makes people suspicious is all the Tapas groupe deleted them too, Coincidence? Maybe!

As for Robert Murat I agree he should take anyone through any court if they have Lied & Slandered his Name I also wish him the best of Luck in doing so...I also agree the Mcs have & should have the same right's as Murat! Have to say though IMHO the mcs make most of the Drama & seem to thrive onit...Just a shame they didn't & haven't looked quite so hard for their daughter! as they appear to look for reason's to hush people up with threat's of being sued, The Mcs need to learn there are people who don't believe them on anything they have to say, It also seem's everyone who start's out helping them end up turning against them & I do wonder why this is?! Even the Priest from portugal....So maybe the Mcs are just very very very unlucky people or just maybe some are not as easily fooled as other's!

I don't think they Hurt their Child & I don't think the Tapas 7 are covering up a death or anything so bad.! I do think they're covering something up & thats the timelines.! Onething I do know is from the police statements I have read that someone somewhere is telling alot of lies & the statement's I have read upto now are from them being interview in the UK not portugal!

Also of course alot of this stuff is going to be repetition as people join & leave this thread you will get some of the same question's asked I know I must have drove everyone mad on here asking who is this that & the other! so that count's for some of it. Also people I find are interested in different aspect's of this case! I also think it's vital poster's like yourself Audrey Mrs Byrne & other poster's are here to put your thought on all this so I do hope you will all continue to post because I for one enjoy all your post's as i'm sure most of other poster's do too...You all make some great post's & I for one would hate to think I have upset any of you personally because it hasn't been intentional if I have....Please keep posting everyone!.

dark crystal

DerekWaters wrote: »

A pitchforkers dream........

What you dismiss as a conspiracy theory is actually the findings of a joint investigation by the portugese and British police, something you always fail to mention. The actual files are available for everybody to read!!!!

.

Those findings were not deemed reliable enough to warrant a prosecution by either police force. The McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law, whether you believe them or not.

The police forces findings were largely based on theory, as there was no direct evidence to link the McCanns to any crime, nor was there a body found on which to base any of their theories.

Some of the speculations on this thread have very much veered into conspiracy theory territory....hence the mod note a page back.