Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

iamwhoiam

One oddity is understandable , two a little strange , five becomes difficult to understand and when its a whole group being odd and strange then it becomes suspicious .
Coupled with untruths and changing stories and evasion and lack of co operation it gets increasinely difficult to grasp that parents of a missing little girl can be so very unco operative . I would sell my soul to Satan if it would bring back my baby . I would tell them my innermost thougths , my every move , every blink I ever made , every lie I ever told just to try to get my baby back .

I dont know if someone is guiding and advising the Mc Canns how to behave , maybe it is so ,But if it is the advisor is doing them no favours whatso ever .

ISDW

Stella89 wrote: »

Do you reckon that this case had no dramatic effect on tourism in that region of portugal ?

Of course it has, and the fact that nobody has been charged with anything obviously increases that impact. So, if the English parents had been the culprits, it would help the tourist industry in that area, as it would obviously have nothing to do with Portugal, that just happened to be the place that they were in at the time.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

`

If you're down to using spelling to try to diminish and undermine the validity of a person's argument, or insidiously trying to show, that they are too uneducated to form an opinion ISDW then you've already lost the argument.

Btw, I've already been accused on this thread of being a McCann "apologist", by the McCann "haters".

I've also been accused of being a McCann "hater", by the McCann "apologisists".

I'd like to think that I can be as impartial and as sceptical as Kess73.

And, btw, there are 5 McCanns. I know which three are definitely innocent.

Choco

What argument? Nobody on here knows what happened, so how is there an argument to be had? My point was that the poster was saying how much respect they have for the Portuguese people, but yet they post Portugal all the way along, then change the spelling when talking about the people, in my opinion, that doesn't show much respect for people.

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I can totally understand that reasoning Audrey, but do you honestly think that they had to wipe their phones and refuse to provide their credit card statements?

Do you think that Visa and Vodafone are "McCann haters" too? Along with the entire Portuguese and British police services?

Seems a little farfetched to me.

But thats what I don't understand, they deleted their call records on their phones, but surely the police in Portugal or UK could get those records from the phone companies. Why didn't they? Is that not part of the incompetent policing that people talk about? Or is this part of the conspiracy theory, that the McCann's influence goes so high up that they can prevent police forces from two countries getting a court order if necessary to obtain phone records?

My point all along has been that we don't know everything, there must be things that are kept back by the police, why would they release every piece of information that they have to the general public? That could hinder any prosecution in the future. If you don't have all of the facts then you can't make a reasonable assumption about things. Yes you can make guesses, but guesses based on half the information are useless. We all that the internet is full of misinformation and lies, I don't understand why people take things from links posted on here as gospel.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

Much of what is being cited here does not particularly point to guilt or innocent but to oddity.

Yes, refusal to cooperate, conflicting witness statements, inconsistencies between statements and physical evidence, wiping phone records, third party witness statements about some of those involved,

lugha wrote: »

Did they refuse to cooperate before they were made suspects?

What would you call deleting phone records the night your daughter is allegedly kidnapped? Odd? Or the fact that the police requested the McCanns pursue one course of action with regard to the media etc int he immediate aftermath of the disappearance and they did the polar opposite?

Can you think of a reason why identifying items in a wardrobe from a photo of the crime scene would incriminate Kate, even as an arguida?




Were the rest of the Tapas 9 formally made suspects? Not that I recall, yet they too have refused cooperation with the police.

HisGreatness

This type of stuff should be closed away. Is the daughter superior than other people?

prinz

ISDW wrote: »

But thats what I don't understand, they deleted their call records on their phones, but surely the police in Portugal or UK could get those records from the phone companies. Why didn't they? Is that not part of the incompetent policing that people talk about?

The police did get the information, as much as could be got from the network operators etc. That's not the point. The point is why anybody, in the hours following the disappearance of their daughter (the hours spent frantically searching) would decide to delete records of calls and texts?

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

But, there are oddities, and then there are untruths. The below quote is a load of bullshít on the part of the McCanns. I don't see it as odd. I see it as a lie.

But still you have to say why such “lies” are indicative of guilt? The only question of real interest here is whether or not the McCanns were involved in their daughter’s disappearance. Not whether they are liars or not, or whether they are media manipulators or not, nor whether they are terrible parents or not.
So why does saying what they say about the shutters imply that they are guilty? It is not more plausible that they are desperate to pedal the intruder thru the window story because they know the optics of an intruder through an unlocked door look pretty bad?

iamwhoiam wrote: »

One oddity is understandable , two a little strange , five becomes difficult to understand and when its a whole group being odd and strange then it becomes suspicious .

Yes. It is reasonable to suspect ....... that they are odd people!
But what we really want to know is if they are involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. If the individual peculiarities are not in themselves suspicious then they contribute nothing to the cumulative total of evidence.
What you need to with each incident or utterance that you think is relevant is ask yourself, is this something you would be more likely to expect from a guilty party than an innocent one. If the answer is no then it counts for nothing, no matter how many such incidents there are.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

What you need to with each incident or utterance that you think is relevant is ask yourself, is this something you would be more likely to expect from a guilty party than an innocent one. If the answer is no then it counts for nothing, no matter how many such incidents there are.

...and when the answer is yes? It does count for something hurray.

lugha

prinz wrote: »

refusal to cooperate, conflicting witness statements, inconsistencies between statements

All indicative of them not being involved IMO. I cited an example of a case earlier where police suspicions were aroused precisely because the “witnesses” never changed their story. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, unless they have precooked their stories in which case you might expect them to be remarkably consistent.

prinz wrote: »

physical evidence

Yes, the dogs. The only real evidence IMO.

prinz wrote: »

wiping phone records

That suggests that there was something on the phones that they did not want people to know about. Perhaps some unrelated “adult” exchanges between the couples which would be embarrassing. Or perhaps something that contradicted what they said about how often they checked their children. But a bit of a jump to say that there was something on them that incriminated them in something more sinister.

prinz wrote: »

Or the fact that the police requested the McCanns pursue one course of action with regard to the media etc int he immediate aftermath of the disappearance and they did the polar opposite?

I have answered that already earlier. Whether they were sensible or not to do so, it is absolutely not what you would expect a guilty couple to do.

prinz wrote: »

Can you think of a reason why identifying items in a wardrobe from a photo of the crime scene would incriminate Kate, even as an arguida?

I have made the point several times that a suspect’s right to silence is to protect the innocent. If you don’t accept that so be it.
Again I revert to the essential question that I think needs to be asked with all of these incidents. It is more indicative of someone being guilty rather than innocent. Can you offer a reason why a guilty person would have any reason not to answer such a mundane question?

prinz wrote: »

...and when the answer is yes? It does count for something hurray.

Yes it does. If you can make that argument. But no such argument is being made for a lot of the “evidence” being presented here

Kess73

ISDW wrote: »

Of course it has, and the fact that nobody has been charged with anything obviously increases that impact. So, if the English parents had been the culprits, it would help the tourist industry in that area, as it would obviously have nothing to do with Portugal, that just happened to be the place that they were in at the time.



What argument? Nobody on here knows what happened, so how is there an argument to be had? My point was that the poster was saying how much respect they have for the Portuguese people, but yet they post Portugal all the way along, then change the spelling when talking about the people, in my opinion, that doesn't show much respect for people.



But thats what I don't understand, they deleted their call records on their phones, but surely the police in Portugal or UK could get those records from the phone companies. Why didn't they? Is that not part of the incompetent policing that people talk about? Or is this part of the conspiracy theory, that the McCann's influence goes so high up that they can prevent police forces from two countries getting a court order if necessary to obtain phone records?
My point all along has been that we don't know everything, there must be things that are kept back by the police, why would they release every piece of information that they have to the general public? That could hinder any prosecution in the future. If you don't have all of the facts then you can't make a reasonable assumption about things. Yes you can make guesses, but guesses based on half the information are useless. We all that the internet is full of misinformation and lies, I don't understand why people take things from links posted on here as gospel.

Actually the police did try to get the phone records and the official statement was that they were told that other UK agencies would have top be consulted.

Also when the police wanted to tap the phones involved the request was turned down as it would impact upon British National security.


Also in January of this year the McCanns again demanded that they get phone records to prove that their phones had and are not tapped or checked by police from 2007 to now. They basically threw up legal barrier after legal barrier to protect their phone records.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/01/30/parents-of-missing-madeleine-mccann-demand-phone-hacking-files-86908-22886491/


Plus we had the McCanns coming out with claims that they were having their phone lines hacked when they were asked to present their phone records.

As always it seems when they are asked to do one thing, they turn it into an accusation of something being done against them.



Also the McCanns, their one of the media spokespeople had at one time said they would be happy to hand in their phone records, but it suddenly bacame an issue when they were actually asked to do so.


A bit like when they sat in front of the tv cameras and said they would be happy to take lie decector test to prove they were innocent, but quickly refused when that option was offered to them after than interview.


They have just always seemed very quick to make what seem like genuine gestures to help any investiagtions, then when asked to do what they claimed they would be happy to do, they react with anger and try to paint whatever organisation that asked as unreasonable and incompetent.

AskMyChocolate

ISDW wrote: »

Who are these Portegese people of whom you speak? Do you mean Portuguese?

Aw now, your last sentence may not be true, nobody has ever admitted to you that they do this, doesn't actually mean they don't, or haven't, fact!

Until Donkey Oaty posted about this being an Irish board, I didn't realise you were British, just had a quick look on your profile. Of the 57 posts you've made on boards.ie, only 2 haven't been on this thread. It would appear that you have a bit of a vested interest in this topic, did you join boards.ie just because of this thread? Nothing wrong with that if you did, just I find it interesting.

ISDW wrote: »

Of course it has, and the fact that nobody has been charged with anything obviously increases that impact. So, if the English parents had been the culprits, it would help the tourist industry in that area, as it would obviously have nothing to do with Portugal, that just happened to be the place that they were in at the time.



What argument? Nobody on here knows what happened, so how is there an argument to be had? My point was that the poster was saying how much respect they have for the Portuguese people, but yet they post Portugal all the way along, then change the spelling when talking about the people, in my opinion, that doesn't show much respect for people.



But thats what I don't understand, they deleted their call records on their phones, but surely the police in Portugal or UK could get those records from the phone companies. Why didn't they? Is that not part of the incompetent policing that people talk about? Or is this part of the conspiracy theory, that the McCann's influence goes so high up that they can prevent police forces from two countries getting a court order if necessary to obtain phone records?

My point all along has been that we don't know everything, there must be things that are kept back by the police, why would they release every piece of information that they have to the general public? That could hinder any prosecution in the future. If you don't have all of the facts then you can't make a reasonable assumption about things. Yes you can make guesses, but guesses based on half the information are useless. We all that the internet is full of misinformation and lies, I don't understand why people take things from links posted on here as gospel.

When you're in a hole stop digging. Although, I'm sure you would claim that the very fact that you're digging while in a hole, means that you're not in a hole.

Don't be disingenuous. People see through it. Now, why don't you go and fix Bertie a Martini.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

All indicative of them not being involved IMO. I cited an example of a case earlier where police suspicions were aroused precisely because the “witnesses” never changed their story. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, unless they have precooked their stories in which case you might expect them to be remarkably consistent.

Bollix frankly. Everyone can admit that your times etc might be out and that testimonies strikingly similar in their exactitude or wording would raise suspicions, but you can't say that two people spend time together, person A later says they were together 30 odd seconds, person B says its was more like 30 odd minutes....... well that certainly indicates that they are both telling the truth...

lugha wrote: »

That suggests that there was something on the phones that they did not want people to know about. Perhaps some unrelated “adult” exchanges between the couples which would be embarrassing. Or perhaps something that contradicted what they said about how often they checked their children. But a bit of a jump to say that there was something on them that incriminated them in something more sinister...

It's no more or less of a jump than to assume it wasn't relating to something more sinister. Ah yes I can imagine how the old embarrassing exchange between adults would be right up there in priority terms with your missing 3 year old who you honestly believe has been kidnapped.

lugha wrote: »

I have answered that already earlier. Whether they were sensible or not to do so, it is absolutely not what you would expect a guilty couple to do....

That's debatable. I wouldn't expect a killer to go on the Late Late Show and discuss how the murder happened.........oh wait........

lugha wrote: »

I have made the point several times that a suspect’s right to silence is to protect the innocent. If you don’t accept that so be it.....

So in other words you cannot come up with a logical reason for refusing to answer questions about items in the photographs of the possible crime scene? Just what in that instance did she need protecting from? The fashion police? Question Did you contact Sky News? Nope can't answer that because it obviously incriminates me in the disappearance of Madeleine... actually it doesn't, I'm just going to be deliberately awkward instead.

lugha wrote: »

Again I revert to the essential question that I think needs to be asked with all of these incidents. It is more indicative of someone being guilty rather than innocent. Can you offer a reason why a guilty person would have any reason not to answer such a mundane question?.....

Can you offer a reason why an innocent person would have any reason not to answer such a mundane question? Especially an innocent person who goes to the media about how much they want to cooperate with police etc?

lugha wrote: »

Yes it does. If you can make that argument. But no such argument is being made for a lot of the “evidence” being presented here

Who has to make that argument? Some people come to a different conclusion to you, fantastic.

NTMK

lugha wrote: »

That suggests that there was something on the phones that they did not want people to know about. Perhaps some unrelated “adult” exchanges between the couples which would be embarrassing. Or perhaps something that contradicted what they said about how often they checked their children. But a bit of a jump to say that there was something on them that incriminated them in something more sinister.

what kind of logic is that?
the last thing i would do if a child went missing would be to delete phone records because there are embarrassing messages on it. They planned to wipe their phones cause there is no chance all nine just wipe their phones of their own accord

And your opinion about the witnesses its true that changes to what the saw is usually a sign of the truth but only small changes the statements about what the abductor looked like have changed completely 3 times at least

The mccanns have pretty much impeded any attempt of an investigation since the get go and that doesnt seem suspicous to you?

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

But still you have to say why such “lies” are indicative of guilt? The only question of real interest here is whether or not the McCanns were involved in their daughter’s disappearance. Not whether they are liars or not, or whether they are media manipulators or not, nor whether they are terrible parents or not.
So why does saying what they say about the shutters imply that they are guilty? It is not more plausible that they are desperate to pedal the intruder thru the window story because they know the optics of an intruder through an unlocked door look pretty bad?

That almost reads like some sort of brain teaser

I don't like the word "apologist" in relation to this thread, especially considering that I can see a lot of where you are coming from, up until now. But, you are being way to generous to the McCanns.

When you say guilty, what do you mean? Guilty of what? There is a wide range of things they are guilty of. When you add these things together it points to gaping holes in statements, evidence and answers.

Lie and missing child just dont fit in the same sentence. Any decent human being will sacrifice how they appear, or a few hours under interrogation, if there's any chance it will point towards a way to find their child.

AudreyHepburn

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I can totally understand that reasoning Audrey, but do you honestly think that they had to wipe their phones and refuse to provide their credit card statements?

Do you think that Visa and Vodafone are "McCann haters" too? Along with the entire Portuguese and British police services?

Seems a little farfetched to me.

Ah now in fairness I never said either of the above did I?

I don't why they erased their phones and so forth, if they really did.

But I don't believe you can equate deleting phone records with being guitly of killing their child.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But I don't believe you can equate deleting phone records with being guitly of killing their child.

Nobody is equating them. Deleting phone records, along with a whole host of other inconsistencies in the various versions of events/stories etc, all add up to a very murky picture which naturally leads to suspicion falling on the McCanns and their friends.

It takes a very special person to come up with ever more far-fetched reasons in attempts to explain away all the issues such as the phone logs, different descriptions of the person seen with the child, completely different time lines etc etc etc.

Taking it all into account how anyone can come to a conclusion that they are 100% sure that the McCanns are not hiding anything (doesn't even have to be killing Madeleine it could be something else entirely) is beyond me.

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

Nobody is equating them. Deleting phone records, along with a whole host of other inconsistencies in the various versions of events/stories etc, all add up to a very murky picture which naturally leads to suspicion falling on the McCanns and their friends.

It takes a very special person to come up with ever more far-fetched reasons in attempts to explain away all the issues such as the phone logs, different descriptions of the person seen with the child, completely different time lines etc etc etc.

Taking it all into account how anyone can come to a conclusion that they are 100% sure that the McCanns are not hiding anything (doesn't even have to be killing Madeleine it could be something else entirely) is beyond me.

Em....I'm not trying to explain away everything. I already admitted can't explain the phone records thing for example.

Also I have heard in several places that the police would be more suspicous of people whose stories were 100% identical and never changed in the slightest because it would suggest they had been rehearsed/made up.

I honestly believe if the McCanns are hiding something it is probably how often they checked the babies, nothing more.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Also I have heard in several places that the police would be more suspicous of people whose stories were 100% identical and never changed in the slightest because it would suggest they had been rehearsed/made up..

Already been dealt with. Minor inconsistencies are to be expected. Major inconsistencies aren't.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I honestly believe if the McCanns are hiding something it is probably how
often they checked the babies, nothing more.

Why hide even that?

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

Already been dealt with. Minor inconsistencies are to be expected. Major inconsistencies aren't.

I still don't think the inconsistancies are enough to hang them. But that's just me.

Why hide even that?

Because it would only be more fuel for those who believe them guilty of Madeleine's death. It would only turn people against them more.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I still don't think the inconsistancies are enough to hang them. But that's just me..

Why who recommended we hang them?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Because it would only be more fuel for those who believe them guilty of Madeleine's death. It would only turn people against them more.

...and of course what people think of Kate and Gerry is far more important that a full, frank and open investigation of what actually happened to Madeleine. Tbh if they came out and said they weren't checking the kids I'd actually be more inclined to believe their abductor story.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Em....I'm not trying to explain away everything. I already admitted can't explain the phone records thing for example.

Also I have heard in several places that the police would be more suspicous of people whose stories were 100% identical and never changed in the slightest because it would suggest they had been rehearsed/made up.

I honestly believe if the McCanns are hiding something it is probably how often they checked the babies, nothing more.

I personally think that this is the most likely scenario, and that they got caught up in lie covering lie to maintain that part of the story, until things got to the stage where they could not come clean on one set of lies because it would cast even more doubt on everything else they claimed.


But unless something happens in the future that confirms this and/or proves that somebody else did indeed abduct their child, there will always be an element of doubt about this case, and a number of realistic potential scenarios as well as the more far fetched variations.

TheZohanS

lugha wrote: »

Ok. Can you make an argument why you might expect someone who was involved in the disappearance of their daughter not to take part in the search? Surely their fear of getting caught would urge them to take part to avert suspicion?

Well I can, and not relating to this case in particular. If you were involved with the disappearance of someone(say you murdered them) there's no point in looking for them because they're dead. Also if a body was recovered I'd imagine, and this is pure speculation, that it would be preferable not to be there so you have time to assess the situation...breathing space.

Another reason someone might not search for someone they were directly involved with is because they're grieving. A normal person who's child disappears would be out there searching 'til the cows come home, someone that knows their child is dead would start grieving.

EDIT: And when I'm talking about murdering someone I'm talking about your own flesh and blood, not someone unrelated.

_feedback_

prinz wrote: »

Tbh if they came out and said they weren't checking the kids I'd actually be more inclined to believe their abductor story.

That is hitting the nail on the head.

They are so wound up in advisors and PR and their own stories, that nothing makes sense anymore.

The good old reliable saying comes in to play - "honesty is the best policy".

If there was one big piece that didn't make sense, even as big as the shutter business, but everything else fitted in, I'm fairly sure I'd brush aside the one big doubtful piece.

But, there are just way way too many inconsistencies, lies and suspicious pieces of behaviour to brush away.

Mistyeyes321

ISDW wrote: »

Of course it has, and the fact that nobody has been charged with anything obviously increases that impact. So, if the English parents had been the culprits, it would help the tourist industry in that area, as it would obviously have nothing to do with Portugal, that just happened to be the place that they were in at the time.



What argument? Nobody on here knows what happened, so how is there an argument to be had? My point was that the poster was saying how much respect they have for the Portuguese people, but yet they post Portugal all the way along, then change the spelling when talking about the people, in my opinion, that doesn't show much respect for people.



But thats what I don't understand, they deleted their call records on their phones, but surely the police in Portugal or UK could get those records from the phone companies. Why didn't they? Is that not part of the incompetent policing that people talk about? Or is this part of the conspiracy theory, that the McCann's influence goes so high up that they can prevent police forces from two countries getting a court order if necessary to obtain phone records?

My point all along has been that we don't know everything, there must be things that are kept back by the police, why would they release every piece of information that they have to the general public? That could hinder any prosecution in the future. If you don't have all of the facts then you can't make a reasonable assumption about things. Yes you can make guesses, but guesses based on half the information are useless. We all that the internet is full of misinformation and lies, I don't understand why people take things from links posted on here as gospel.

How very true of course by your own reasoning in the last part of this post...We don't know everything none of us do! I have been open with all my post's & have stated from the start. I don't think the mcs hurt their daughter... Neglected their babies yes! Now I could be so so very wrong & if anyone post's a link here I will read it. Why? Because i'm interested in this Case as you are! It's quite easy for anyone to go & check old post's from people I can do the samething. It mean's nothing no more than making a Spelling mistake make me a bad person...I never used the word's respect btw...& my point was totally over looked & that was...You get pedo's not just in Portugal but all over the world & that my friend you cannot argue with...Simples!:D

TheZohanS

IT IS the conclusion police hoped they would never have to reach.

Six months after six-year-old Kiesha Abrahams disappeared, officers will tell the coroner the missing western Sydney schoolgirl is dead.

Police had refused to rule out the possibility Kiesha was abducted from her Mt Druitt home during the night, or that she wandered into the hands of the wrong person.

Now homicide detectives said they were treating her disappearance as a murder.

Head of the investigation, Detective Inspector Russell Oxford, yesterday said all other theories had been ruled out, leaving police with the harsh reality of informing the State Coroner that they believe Kiesha was dead.

"It's a hard call to have to make, and a pretty big decision, but we have had six months of exhaustive investigations into that little girl's disappearance, and that is where we are at," Insp Russell said.
Startling information revealed Kiesha had not been seen alive for three weeks before her mother Kristi Abrahams and step-father Robert Smith reported her missing on the morning of August 1, saying the little girl had been abducted from her bedroom during the night.

That was six months ago today.

Insp Oxford said the last time Kiesha was seen alive was on July 11, at a birthday party for one of Mr Smith's relatives held at a property at Londonderry.

"That is the last time we have someone who physically saw her alive, other than her mother or step-father," Insp Oxford said.

Claims a female neighbour saw Kiesha playing in the yard about a week before she was reported missing have been ruled out.

An extensive forensic examination of the family's unit failed to reveal any trace of an intruder.

It is understood an amount of blood, which matched Kiesha's DNA, was found in her bedroom.

A team of police has trawled through thousands of pieces of evidence, interviewed dozens of people including paedophiles, and investigated whether she had been smuggled out of the country.

Once the Coroner is notified about Kiesha's suspected murder, a date will be assigned for an inquest.

Insp Oxford said there would only be an inquest if no one was charged in the meantime.

"I am confident we will get a result here," he said.

Source.

Sound familiar?


Sad thing is: no body = no case/prosecution

lugha

prinz wrote: »

person A later says they were together 30 odd seconds, person B says its was more like 30 odd minutes....... well that certainly indicates that they are both telling the truth...

And you get from that to ... the McCanns and their friends were involved in a conspiracy to conceal a child’s death ..... how exactly?

prinz wrote: »

It's no more or less of a jump than to assume it wasn't relating to something more sinister.

Our legal system, as well as any notion of common decency, should compel us to regard someone as innocent unless we can establish otherwise. You are saying that there is a strong case against them. It is up to you to make it. Not the McCanns or anyone else to make a case for their innocence.

prinz wrote: »

Ah yes I can imagine how the old embarrassing exchange between adults would be right up there in priority terms with your missing 3 year old who you honestly believe has been kidnapped.

If that is what happened then they might quite reasonable have decided that such exchanges had to bearing on the child’s disappearance. It would not have been an either or. Perhaps at the request of one of the other adults? I will admit that the phone evidence at least amounts to some evidence, but not a great deal IMO.

prinz wrote: »

That's debatable. I wouldn't expect a killer to go on the Late Late Show and discuss how the murder happened.........oh wait........

Actually I would. There has been a host of teary eyed worried relatives in the UK who have done the police press conference appeal, only to be subsequently exposed.

prinz wrote: »

So in other words you cannot come up with a logical reason for refusing to answer questions about items in the photographs of the possible crime scene? Just what in that instance did she need protecting from? The fashion police? Question Did you contact Sky News? Nope can't answer that because it obviously incriminates me in the disappearance of Madeleine... actually it doesn't, I'm just going to be deliberately awkward instead.

The onus is on you to make the case that answering that question could somehow expose her deceit. If you can’t (and I don’t think you can), then once again I’m afraid, you have nothing.

prinz wrote: »

Can you offer a reason why an innocent person would have any reason not to answer such a mundane question?

Ditto

prinz wrote: »

Who has to make that argument? Some people come to a different conclusion to you, fantastic.

I think if you are citing evidence you should reason why it is evidence. For example, if the story about Gerry replacing the fridge was true (which I seriously doubt) then that would constitute evidence. Because this would be most unlikely behaviour for someone who is innocent but there is quite a plausible reason why someone who was hiding a body might do so.
But there is very little of that going on here. What we are getting is things like “ they post their run times”, “they discuss the search method in marketing terms” “he said read the book!”. And nobody is joining up the dots and saying why this amounts to suspicious (as oppose to odd!) behaviour.

Elvis wrote: »

When you say guilty, what do you mean? Guilty of what? There is a wide range of things they are guilty of. When you add these things together it points to gaping holes in statements, evidence and answers.

The only interesting question IMO is whether they are involved in some way with the disappearance of their daughter.
And again I say, what I would expect in a conspiracy is that the witness accounts of the conspirators would knit neatly together. Do you think there was a conspiracy and they didn’t take the time to sketch even a rough outline of what happened? Or if they didn’t have an opportunity, do you not think that reasonably smart people would not of their own bat, concoct completely fabricated accounts which would almost certainly be contradicted by the others?
Surely you can see that it is much more plausible that a combination of the fact that they were drinking, that there might have been a bit of over-zealousness in their efforts to help and perhaps even a little hubris that a doctors word should be accepted unquestionably, is a far more likely explanation?
Can you offer a plausible explanation as to why their accounts were so inconsistent, if there was a conspiracy?
With respect, I think you are doing what many others are doing. Citing a oddity or an inconsistency, but failing to follow through and explain why that amounts to evidence.

dark crystal

TheZohan wrote: »

Well I can, and not relating to this case in particular. If you were involved with the disappearance of someone(say you murdered them) there's no point in looking for them because they're dead. Also if a body was recovered I'd imagine, and this is pure speculation, that it would be preferable not to be there so you have time to assess the situation...breathing space.

Another reason someone might not search for someone they were directly involved with is because they're grieving. A normal person who's child disappears would be out there searching 'til the cows come home, someone that knows their child is dead would start grieving.
.

This is not necessarily true at all.

I know that in the cases of Sarah Payne and the Soham girls, their parents were not out searching - the police were (and in the case of Holly and Jessica, the RAF as well). Neither of these families were guilty of murder.

There would be family liaison police officers sent to the family's home to relay any news of the search and provide support for the parents as well.

In the McCann case, they had the added obstacle of being in a foreign country, so would have no idea about the local surrounding areas and it would seem far more sensible to allow the police to search, given that they would have a much better geographical knowledge of the area involved.

lugha

zohan wrote: »

Well I can, and not relating to this case in particular. If you were involved with the disappearance of someone(say you murdered them) there's no point in looking for them because they're dead.

That’s plausible. But I think you would be more acutely aware of deflection suspicion, if there was a reason for suspicion. I think it bizarre that they did not search but it would have been far more bizarre had they not searched if they were somehow involved.

zohan wrote: »

Also if a body was recovered I'd imagine, and this is pure speculation, that it would be preferable not to be there so you have time to assess the situation...breathing space.

They would know where the body is and where is was not. And it was clearly not dumped somewhere that a search party would have found.

IMO, another oddity. But the link to enable is to constitute evidence is missing.

_feedback_

lugha wrote: »

The only interesting question IMO is whether they are involved in some way with the disappearance of their daughter.
And again I say, what I would expect in a conspiracy is that the witness accounts of the conspirators would knit neatly together. Do you think there was a conspiracy and they didn’t take the time to sketch even a rough outline of what happened? Or if they didn’t have an opportunity, do you not think that reasonably smart people would not of their own bat, concoct completely fabricated accounts which would almost certainly be contradicted by the others?
Surely you can see that it is much more plausible that a combination of the fact that they were drinking, that there might have been a bit of over-zealousness in their efforts to help and perhaps even a little hubris that a doctors word should be accepted unquestionably, is a far more likely explanation?
Can you offer a plausible explanation as to why their accounts were so inconsistent, if there was a conspiracy?
With respect, I think you are doing what many others are doing. Citing a oddity or an inconsistency, but failing to follow through and explain why that amounts to evidence.

This is a very extensive thread. I'm merely going briefly over a tiny portion of the "oddities" and "inconsistecies" in the past few posts. Yes, I am pointing to very obvious gaps that really can't be explained by me. They can only be explained by the McCanns, but they persist in avoidance, lies and confusion.

I can't explain why they didn't have their story more straight, but then again I dont know who in the group was involved, if anyone.

Pointing out that people on the internet don't have any evidence is a bit silly to be fair, if there was concrete evidence we wouldn't be debating.

lugha

elviscostello wrote: »

Pointing out that people on the internet don't have any evidence is a bit silly to be fair, if there was concrete evidence we wouldn't be debating.

That's not quite what I am saying. I am saying they are citing something they say amounts to evidence but fail to say why this is so.

If you cite any curiosity / inconsistency / lie, you need to ask: it is more likely that you would see this from someone who is guilty than someone who is innocent.

If the answer is yes, you can call it evidence. If the answer is no, you are stuck with the curiosity / inconsistency / lie which needs to be explained. But you don't have evidence.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

And you get from that to ... the McCanns and their friends were involved in a conspiracy to conceal a child’s death ..... how exactly?

Did I say that? I have said numerous times that somebody isn't being 100% truthful about something.

lugha wrote: »

Our legal system, as well as any notion of common decency, should compel us to regard someone as innocent unless we can establish otherwise. You are saying that there is a strong case against them. It is up to you to make it. Not the McCanns or anyone else to make a case for their innocence.

The case against them has been made. Unless of course you are going to claim that senior experienced Portuguese and British investigators all lack common decency? I don't think anybody has claimed to have conclusive proof of anything.

lugha wrote: »

If that is what happened then they might quite reasonable have decided that such exchanges had to bearing on the child’s disappearance. It would not have been an either or. Perhaps at the request of one of the other adults? I will admit that the phone evidence at least amounts to some evidence, but not a great deal IMO..

Quite reasonable yes. 'Sorry Kate, Gerry, I know your daughter has allegedly just been kidnapped by person or persons unknown, but you wouldn't mind deleting those texts I sent you last night, ta'.

lugha wrote: »

Actually I would. There has been a host of teary eyed worried relatives in the UK who have done the police press conference appeal, only to be subsequently exposed...

You obviously missed the sarcasm there.

lugha wrote: »

The onus is on you to make the case that answering that question could somehow expose her deceit. If you can’t (and I don’t think you can), then once again I’m afraid, you have nothing....

Last time I looked boards wasn't a courtroom, so you can stand down counsellor.

lugha wrote: »

IMO, another oddity. But the link to enable is to constitute evidence is missing.

You've got so many "oddities" now, it's turning into the Twilight Zone.