Madeline Mccann

[Raavi]

I personally don't think they will ever find the girl, and that the whole idea of her being abducted is bogus, I think the parents know exactly what happened to her, and if no proof will ever be found to prove them wrong, then at least it can be agreed that their negligence is what caused their daughter to disappear, they should never have left her alone. This is something that they are 100% guilty of, and the fact didn't that they were never charged for this is a mystery to me.

 

 

By negligence you mean the fact they left the patio door unlocked? You do realise that leaving the back door unlocked is common practice in large parts of the world right?No self-respecting judge will ever convict someone because of that, arguably it can even be the more safe thing to do. Say a fire breaks out, there is no way a 3 year old will get out of a locked apartment, but by keeping the patio sliding door unlocked there always is a way out. But I agree to some extent, personally I would never leave a 3 year old alone. However we unfortunately don't live in a perfect world and many parents do leave their children alone without a babysitter to go out.

[uzi 9mm]

I'm glad you've finally understood my point about the claims regarding the dogs being invalid, though I can't help but notice you also mentioned the fact that you hadn't seen anything to indicate they weren't 100% accurate- which brings us back to the invisible pink unicorns/alien abduction logical fallacy examples.

 

In order for your claims about the cadaver dogs to be true, she must have died a day or so she was reported missing. Given that she was seen alive in this time, I find that highly improbable.

 

Your blog post, even taken at face value, does nothing to actually add merit to the claims that the dogs couldn't have been, or were unlikely to have been, wrong. It's also worth pointing out that it is possible to forensically determine where blood comes from with a reasonable degree of accuracy, so it's not really viable to argue that blood could not have been from a nosebleed without a source to verify this claim as it is likely that tests indicated the source of the blood was either benign or in line with the McCann's claims. Blood from arterial injuries, respiratory trauma, bone trauma, head wounds ect is very different in composition and collateral materials.

Ok, then, all in all, what it boils down to is me being wrong about what is fact and what is conspiracy.

 

The blood they found was dried out and the reason it was highly probably to have not been a nose bleed is because of how and where the blood was found, I know blood is different in composition depending on the type of injury and where it came from, what was said is that for the blood to have ended up in between the tiling the blood from nose bleed must a result of copious amounts of blood having spilled on the floor and also that Madeline would have remained in that spot for the whole duration.

 

I don't believe what they said because if her nose really did bleed that much, she would have required hospital attention at least due to loss of blood, and there were no reports of her being taken to a hospital for a nose bleed. The blood must have got there from something other than that. The spots of blood from nose bleeds that would have made contact with the floor surely can't have seeped through the tiling, unless a puddle of blood formed, which then brings us back to how much blood would have came from a simple nose bleed. Anything enough to be able to seep through floor tiling would require hospital attention.

 

@Raavii, I don't see why'd you'd think that I'm referring to them leaving the patio door open. The neglect is from them leaving the children alone. If they left the patio door open in the event that the children would awaken or need to escape the apartment for what ever reason, then I can't understand why they'd leave the children alone at all, considering they already thought of leaving the door open, this means they already considered the children may not be safe alone.

[sivispacem]

Sorry, but where are these claims of blood volume and quantity coming from? You've referred to them a couple of times but the only reference I can find to them being large enough to be indicative of trauma and/or requiring hospital treatment have been on a few blogs and none of these provide a source for the claims.

 

Also, you would be absolutely astonished how much blood you can lose in an average nosebleed. I used to get them quite frequently when I was younger and it wasn't infeasible to lose a couple of hundred ml of blood. In fact I remember once dying about 75% of a pillow red with a night time nosebleed I never even woke up for. Perfectly possible to get twenty or so ml of blood in less than thirty seconds.

Edited October 25, 2013 by sivispacem

[uzi 9mm]

Well the blood was found in between the tiles and for it to have been found there a large amount of blood had to have caused this, and the parents said it was due to a nose bleed Madeline had, it was unlikely for her to have been in the spot where the blood was found while all the blood poured out of her nose directly onto the floor, plus the fact that she didn't go to hospital that night makes you wonder if her nose really was bleeding, since if it really had have been due to that, she no doubt would have lost quite a lot of blood that night and I'm sure most parents would seek some medical attention but I guess all parents have different views on this, maybe a large amount of blood loss isn't really seen as that bad to some parents, but either ways, for the blood to have been found in between the tiles, a large amount had to have fell there.

 

I know nose bleeds can get quite bad and a lot of blood can be lost, I know people who have had this problem, so I know it's not impossible for a large quantity of blood to arise from just a nose bleed. however, what's suspicious is how coincidental it was that her nose bleed happened where and when it did, by the window, and the night she went missing, but it's just another thing that got by passed I guess.

[sivispacem]

What makes you think you need a large amount of blood for it to seep between tiles? You wouldn't need more than about 10ml to create a sizeable puddle of it which is a few seconds worth of serious nosebleed. So, I'll ask again, where are you getting these blood size claims from?

[uzi 9mm]

I don't see the point of providing any more sources since none of them deem worthy enough.

The blood was said to have been found underneath the tiles, I'll post the link where I read this for the sake of it: http://www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm

The statement by Tony Bennet (who is the guy the Mccanns are suing) was this: the McCanns said that any blood found in the flat (apparently found having oozed underneath the tiles in the living room behind the sofa and where the wall and the floor meet) might have come from Madeleine ‘grazing her leg when she boarded the plane’, or perhaps a nosebleed. These explanations seem highly unlikely, given the amount of blood that would be needed for a small amount to seep through the tiles. The ‘knee incident’ occurred elsewhere, the day their holiday began. Any light bleeding would surely have stopped well before they even got to Praia da Luz. In addition, it is hardly likely that blood from a graze on the knee would be located at the edge of a room where the wall joins the floor. Nosebleeds usually leave only a few spots of blood (if any) on flooring, being largely contained by clothing or a handkerchief or similar over the nose. It’s highly unlikely that Madeleine would have sat still while copious quantities of blood poured from her nose on to the tiled floor, right by the living room wall.

The page there has 60 reasons to suggest that Madeline was not abducted, and all the reasons sound fairly, well, reasonable. While it's mere speculation, it's backed up with video clips of interviews, logical explanations, and every factor that suggests how MAdeline probably wasn't abducted.

I'll post some very interesting ones to consider.

Another bizarre description of the alleged abduction occurred during the Panorama programme transmitted on 19 November 2007. Describing how the abduction must have happened, and pressed by her interviewer, Richard Bilton, that the abductor must have had only a small ‘window of opportunity’ during which to snatch Madeleine, she replied in a very causal, laid-back manner:

“They’d been watching us, over a matter of days, I’m sure, erm, you know. They know, erm, you know, they must have known, you know, that Gerry had just been into the apartment and then…[she makes a fast swish of her arms and a loud guttural click in the throat - described by many on the Internet as ‘whoosh, clunk’] erm, you’re right, there was only a small window of opportunity, but, you know…” The real effect of witnessing how she describes this apparently most tragic event in her life can only really be appreciated by watching the clip of it on YouTube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQazjM-bCo).

Dr Gerry McCann’s brother, John McCann, immediately gave up his full-time job with a pharmaceuticals company, despite having a house, wife and children to support. This might seem like a selfless, generous act. But we might ask: How did John McCann know in advance that Madeleine wouldn't be found within the next few days or weeks, leaving himself ‘high and dry’ with no job, if she was found? It strongly suggests that he, too, knew that Madeleine would not be found. It must be emphasised that he did not say that he had taken ‘temporary leave of absence’ from his job. He had chosen to resign.

Despite the McCanns’ professed belief that they knew ‘instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted, and despite Dr Kate McCann stating that she had already searched the apartment three times before sounding the alarm, the McCanns have publicly admitted allowing their ‘Tapas 9’ friends to walk all round the apartment, even opening cupboard doors etc., thus contaminating any forensic evidence that the abductor (if there was one) may have left.

Had they really believed that an abductor had been present in their apartment, they would surely have said: ‘Don’t touch anything’.

Incidentally, despite numerous reports to the contrary in the British press, the Portuguese police did seal off Apartment 5A as a crime scene as soon as practicable. The McCanns PR team, however, has repeatedly - and falsely - claimed that the Portuguese police ‘failed to seal the crime scene’.

The McCanns went jogging every day after Madeleine’s disappearance, even making careful notes of their times, then displaying all this information on Dr Gerry McCann’s daily blog. He even arranged tennis matches and played tennis, while hundreds of others were physically searching the area around Praia da Luz in the days following Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’. The McCanns later admitted publicly that they spent no time at all physically searching for their lost daughter.

The McCanns stipulated that for all media interviews, the press had to present all questions to them at least two hours in advance of the interview, adding that they would only answer those questions, and no others. ‘Innocent’ parents who have genuinely lost their child and have nothing to hide would not insist on such onerous conditions being imposed on TV interviewers.

Edited October 26, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[sivispacem]

I don't see the point of providing any more sources since none of them deem worthy enough.

This is precisely my point- there's no merit-worthy source for these statements, therefore they don't have any real value. Claiming that there's no way that x amount of blood could have seeped below the flooring requires a statement from someone like a forensic scientists, y'know, the kind of person who actually works with this kind of thing? And instead we have...

 

 

The blood was said to have been found underneath the tiles, I'll post the link where I read this for the sake of it: http://www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm

C.W Porter, a holocaust denier, with no real experience in forensic sciences, whose already a laughing stock in the scientific community because of his claims about cyanide residue being debunked. He's a known conspiracy theorist with no connection to the case whose day job is effectively denying the largest mass-murder in human history ever took place, and you really think that he's got anything of value to say on the subject?

 

I know poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, but the man's a tool.

 

 

Another bizarre description of the alleged abduction occurred during the Panorama programme transmitted on 19 November 2007. Describing how the abduction must have happened, and pressed by her interviewer, Richard Bilton, that the abductor must have had only a small ‘window of opportunity’ during which to snatch Madeleine, she replied in a very causal, laid-back manner:

 

“They’d been watching us, over a matter of days, I’m sure, erm, you know. They know, erm, you know, they must have known, you know, that Gerry had just been into the apartment and then…[she makes a fast swish of her arms and a loud guttural click in the throat - described by many on the Internet as ‘whoosh, clunk’] erm, you’re right, there was only a small window of opportunity, but, you know…” The real effect of witnessing how she describes this apparently most tragic event in her life can only really be appreciated by watching the clip of it on YouTube (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQazjM-bCo).

This doesn't surprise me at all given that people involved in cases like this are usually trained by experts how to react and behave during interviews and documentaries. The wailing, grieving mother act gains a lot of public support for about 5 minutes, then invariably begins to grate. Being trained on how to behave, and to address probing questions without an emotional response, is part and parcel of cases like this.

 

 

Dr Gerry McCann’s brother, John McCann, immediately gave up his full-time job with a pharmaceuticals company, despite having a house, wife and children to support. This might seem like a selfless, generous act. But we might ask: How did John McCann know in advance that Madeleine wouldn't be found within the next few days or weeks, leaving himself ‘high and dry’ with no job, if she was found? It strongly suggests that he, too, knew that Madeleine would not be found. It must be emphasised that he did not say that he had taken ‘temporary leave of absence’ from his job. He had chosen to resign.

This is a simple case of a non sequitur argument. There's nothing implicit or explicit John McCann's retirement from his job to the case. It could have been previously planned and happened to coincide, or been as a result of unwanted scrutiny, or caused him to re-evaluate his own life. Making such a specific allegation from such vague evidence is totally illogical.

 

 

Despite the McCanns’ professed belief that they knew ‘instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted, and despite Dr Kate McCann stating that she had already searched the apartment three times before sounding the alarm, the McCanns have publicly admitted allowing their ‘Tapas 9’ friends to walk all round the apartment, even opening cupboard doors etc., thus contaminating any forensic evidence that the abductor (if there was one) may have left.

"Instantly" is nothing more than semantics, and open to interpretation. The implications of the use of the word are subjective.

 

 

Had they really believed that an abductor had been present in their apartment, they would surely have said: ‘Don’t touch anything’.

Please refer to my previous comments about people not reacting rationally in crisis situations.

 

 

The McCanns stipulated that for all media interviews, the press had to present all questions to them at least two hours in advance of the interview, adding that they would only answer those questions, and no others. ‘Innocent’ parents who have genuinely lost their child and have nothing to hide would not insist on such onerous conditions being imposed on TV interviewers.

This is hardly rare, and a clear case of the author having precisely f*ck all clue what he's talking about. Almost all press appearances related to legal, civil and criminal matters, be they made by the parent of the victim of a murder, or by the CEO of a company, are performed in this way.

[orbitalraindrops]

My friend told me this the other night and it made alot of sense. But Maddie must be dead. Even if she had been kidnapped surely she now would have been killed out of fear by the people holding her once they saw the media sh*t storm surrounding her.

[GTA_stu]

Why the hell would they want to kill their own daughter?

 

Kate and Gerry McCann have kept on campaigning to try and find out what happened to Madeleine, and have made numerous appearances on TV over the years. They've been in the public spotlight almost continuously, and through choice.

 

If they were responsible for her murder or her death and they tried to cover it up, then I'm pretty sure they'd try to attract as little attention as possible to themselves. No one could blame them if they just wanted to have their privacy and stay away from the public glare.

 

But that's not what they've done. They have through choice, decided to try and keep Madeleine on people's minds by putting themselves on TV, in newspapers, on the radio. They so clearly want their daughter back or to find out what happened to her, and they have campaigned with great effort to keep up the awareness of Madeleine in people's consciousness because they know it will aid them in finding their daughter.

 

 

 

 

[uzi 9mm]

Well, I have to say you do have a way of answering things, maybe you should be a lawyer.

 

Despite you can give smart and 'logical' explanations to a lot of the allegations made, I'd say that what Tony Bennett's statements suggest are more convincing than the responses you reply with, even though you both have a good way of using words, but what about a few more I think are worthy of noting... never mind what reputation CWPorter has, since some of these points made aren't really scientifically complex...

 

At around 10.00pm on Thursday 3rd May, the ‘abduction alert’ was triggered by Dr Kate McCann reportedly screaming and shouting: ‘She’s gone’ and ‘They’ve taken her’, and then running down to the ‘Tapas Bar’ to alert her friends who were, allegedly, all wining and dining there. But with the McCanns later admitting that they may have left the patio door open, could not Madeleine have perhaps wandered off, and either been found by someone, or perhaps fallen and hurt herself? After all, there had been reports that Madeleine had in fact run out of the apartment one night earlier that week, and been found hiding in the bushes outside the apartment.

Why were they so certain that she had been taken by someone? I'm sure the first thought would be that she had walked out possibly even in search of her parents who were not in the flat, she could have woken up and just wandered off, abduction would be one of the last things on someones mind. Forgive me for having to copy and paste this stuff, but your answers seem to combat these otherwise, convincing theories, I'm eager to see what kind of response awaits. So. About Jane Tanner, one of the people who dined with the McCanns and a witness, this has to be noted:

The failure of Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann to talk to each other about the abductor is all the more extraordinary when it became clear, in August 2008, that within two hours of the report that Madeleine had been abducted, Jane Tanner’s partner, Russell O’Brien, had prepared rough notes on the events of that evening which included the entry: “Jane saw stranger walking with child - 9.20pm”. It seems clear that it was part of the plan of the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends to rely on Jane Tanner’s alleged sighting from the word ‘go’, in order to ‘prove’ that there really had been an abduction.

From the outset, Jane Tanner said she had little idea of what the man looked like, but was insistent in confirming that he could have been carrying Madeleine. If she had been so sure, why did she not tell somebody as soon as everyone ‘realised’ that Madeleine was ‘missing’?

Her delay in giving this information to police - despite its initial lack of clarity (see Reason 16 in our booklet) - would have greatly increased any abductor’s chance of escape. If there really had been a man in the vicinity, especially one who might have been carrying a child, it was clearly information the police would want to be able to follow up immediately.

If Jane Tanner’s sighting had been genuine, there is no possible rational explanation for her delaying reporting what she saw for 24 hours, or maybe even longer. Her delay, never mind all the inconsistencies in her story, suggests that her various accounts may have all been fabrications (see below, in Reason 16).

Now you seem to keep mentioning how people do not react rationally in these circumstances, which is fair enough to accept, but keep in mind there was a responsible team of adults here, and I highly doubt they were all irrationally prancing around like headless chickens, surely rationality can be no excuse for Jane Tanner mentioning no word at all of the supposed sighting of a man carrying a sleeping child. An incredibly important piece of information that no excuse can explain it not being spoken of.

You also have to think about how unlikely it is for a 3 year old child to be picked up and carried away by an adult who she has no idea of who it may be, and not made any sound to alert her parents, she wasn't a mute, she was a 3 year old child, who is fully capable of crying and making noise, the way the man was described carrying Madeline showed no sign of him covering up her mouth to stop her screaming, and lets not ignore the fact that an abductor would more likely have been drawn to one of the younger children who would have been lighter to carry and less likely to remember or speak about what happened in the case being questioned in the future, due to them being still so young, whereas a 3 year old like Madeline, who was said to have been quite intelligent,is quite capable of remember more or less everything.

@ GTAStu, I'm not suggesting they wanted kill their own daughter, it could have been an accident, and if they did kill her, it most probably was an accident, I don't really think anyone thinks that they'd have killed Madeline on purpose. They were doctors, and people think it's possible they gave sedatives to the children to keep them from waking at night, but then again, anything could have happened, and what makes it all the more suspicious are the abduction allegation the Mccanns are making, which don't add up when you consider the results of the Police findings, what the Mccanns and their family friends and witnesses claim happened. This suggests that they are lying about the abduction, which points towards them actually knowing what happened and faking the whole thing.

Edited October 26, 2013 by uzi 9mm

[Tchuck]

God damn it dude. Don't you get it? You need sources for your argument, real sources from real people who know what the f*ck they are talking about. If someone is a holocaust denier, chances are his ideas are not worthy to be believed. Or do you also think the holocaust didn't exist?

 

Scientifically complex? Are you a scientist, a forensic scientist or anything related to the matter? No? Then you can't really support that statement.

 

One more time. PEOPLE IN TIMES OF STRESS DON'T f*ckING THINK LOGICALLY OR RATIONALLY! Parent comes back to the apartment, child is missing, they are in a foreign country, instant reaction is to assume the worst. Are you a parent? No? Then you don't f*cking know what it's like. You don't have the backing to judge that. You're "sure" the first thought should have been that. Well, you're wrong.

 

f*ck, she saw a dude carrying a child, thought it was weird, said nothing. sh*t dropped off her mind. Then comes the report that Madeleine was kidnapped. People go into shock and desperation, they don't remember what they were doing the 5 minutes before getting the news. They enter panic mode, in order to try and fix things the way they are now. Only later, when time has passed, can they reassess the situation and review the incident, unless they are trained to react properly during crisis times, which most people aren't, adults included. It is an important piece of information after the fact; prior to it, it was just one of thousands of things that can happen during the course of a day.

 

And how the f*ck do you know if it's unlikely for a 3 year old to be kidnapped? Allow me to use my own anecdotal evidence: I was almost kidnapped when I was a kid. I was around 4 years old at the time, I was with both of my parents at the bike shop. They let me off their sight for a brief moment, I walked closer to the entrance to look at some bikes, some dude came up to me, calmly took my hand and told me to come with him. As I started off walking with him, my parents noticed I was missing and came running to get me. So yeah, kids are easy to kidnap. I mean, it's not like kids were never kidnapped before prior to this, right? So yeah, it's not unlikely, it's actually VERY likely.

 

Do you have any younger siblings? Do you know how sh*tty it is to take care of a toddler? 3 year old Maddy won't be crying all the time, have difficulty sleeping, need special kind of foods, won't cry for her mom. If anything, a baby is more likely to make a noise, due to missing its parents, than a 3 year old. So, if the kidnappers wanted to keep the child alive for the rescue, Madeleine was the optimal target. Those are facts.

 

The result of the police findings did not lead to a body or a murder weapon or a motive or anything. All your blood "evidence" has been addressed previously, and you have yet to provide a credible, see this is key, CREDIBLE, source for your claims, not some people associated with conspiracy theories with blogs on the internet. They aren't speaking the truth noone else sees. They are just conspiracy people.

 

Those are the facts.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

I am shocked that people actually trust these people. I mean you say that where is the evidence which proves they may be guilty of accidental drug overdose, why don't you show us evidence that proves they're not? There's no evidence of an abduction, there was no evidence of a break in and there was most certainly no evidence of a kidnapper, so ask yourselves this? Who's the liar?

 

It's took them 6 years now, yet they are still making up new things as they go along? That's the sign of innocence to you is it?

 

The McCann's are some of the most, scripted, twisted, formulaic, emotionless and completely rehearsed parents I've ever seen in my life. It's just mind boggling that people are allowing them to twist evidence in their own favor and sue anyone who even dares to use constructive criticism against the claims the McCann's have made on the case?

 

The McCann's wanted this documentary banned? The question is why? Why were they that persistent on getting rid of this single documentary for? I mean If they didn't have anything to do with it, why are they so eager to ban something or stop anyone from having their say in the first place?

 

 

Tchuck, there's nothing rational about parents leaving their own children on their own while they go out and enjoy themselves. If anything that's called neglect which is supposed to be against the law, so no matter how you look at it they are guilty either way. I am down right disgusted that you'd even dare say how parenting is, it's the complete opposite to what the McCann's did with their children.

 

It's the duty as parents to look after their children, if parents actually love their children, then they would do anything for them and that includes not going off to have a meal with friends while the children are alone left unattended. That's called being bad parents and it will make the children despise them in the long run.

Edited October 27, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[uzi 9mm]

God damn it dude. Don't you get it? You need sources for your argument, real sources from real people who know what the f*ck they are talking about. If someone is a holocaust denier, chances are his ideas are not worthy to be believed. Or do you also think the holocaust didn't exist?

 

Scientifically complex? Are you a scientist, a forensic scientist or anything related to the matter? No? Then you can't really support that statement.

 

One more time. PEOPLE IN TIMES OF STRESS DON'T f*ckING THINK LOGICALLY OR RATIONALLY! Parent comes back to the apartment, child is missing, they are in a foreign country, instant reaction is to assume the worst. Are you a parent? No? Then you don't f*cking know what it's like. You don't have the backing to judge that. You're "sure" the first thought should have been that. Well, you're wrong.

 

f*ck, she saw a dude carrying a child, thought it was weird, said nothing. sh*t dropped off her mind. Then comes the report that Madeleine was kidnapped. People go into shock and desperation, they don't remember what they were doing the 5 minutes before getting the news. They enter panic mode, in order to try and fix things the way they are now. Only later, when time has passed, can they reassess the situation and review the incident, unless they are trained to react properly during crisis times, which most people aren't, adults included. It is an important piece of information after the fact; prior to it, it was just one of thousands of things that can happen during the course of a day.

 

And how the f*ck do you know if it's unlikely for a 3 year old to be kidnapped? Allow me to use my own anecdotal evidence: I was almost kidnapped when I was a kid. I was around 4 years old at the time, I was with both of my parents at the bike shop. They let me off their sight for a brief moment, I walked closer to the entrance to look at some bikes, some dude came up to me, calmly took my hand and told me to come with him. As I started off walking with him, my parents noticed I was missing and came running to get me. So yeah, kids are easy to kidnap. I mean, it's not like kids were never kidnapped before prior to this, right? So yeah, it's not unlikely, it's actually VERY likely.

 

Do you have any younger siblings? Do you know how sh*tty it is to take care of a toddler? 3 year old Maddy won't be crying all the time, have difficulty sleeping, need special kind of foods, won't cry for her mom. If anything, a baby is more likely to make a noise, due to missing its parents, than a 3 year old. So, if the kidnappers wanted to keep the child alive for the rescue, Madeleine was the optimal target. Those are facts.

 

The result of the police findings did not lead to a body or a murder weapon or a motive or anything. All your blood "evidence" has been addressed previously, and you have yet to provide a credible, see this is key, CREDIBLE, source for your claims, not some people associated with conspiracy theories with blogs on the internet. They aren't speaking the truth noone else sees. They are just conspiracy people.

 

Those are the facts.

f*ck me mate, take a chill pill. f*ck me.

 

I was just saying that the claims on the website were not scientifically complex enough to be doubted, since sivispacem was saying how the website are a laughing stock for mucking something up it'd not really evident when contemplating simple speculation backed up by existing evidence, they are just possible outcomes of the case we should consider, backed up by evidence, a lot of which the Mccanns and the witnesses have already spoken of.

 

Ok, you keep saying people in times of stress don't act rationally, who's to say these f*cking people were even stressed at all? Are you them? Was you there? If you want to be a part of this you need to keep your knickers on Now there were enough adults there for at least one of them to be sensible enough to not act rationally, but there you go that my point of view.

[sivispacem]

I am shocked that people actually trust these people.

No-one has said that we do, in case you're completely oblivious to the discussion that's actually taking place. What we're saying is that the people who argue from a point of conviction that the McCann's killed their daughter and covered it up don't actually have any evidence to prove this, and many of the arguments they are making are based on conjecture, hearsay, poor fundamental analysis and intentional or naive misrepresentation of reality.

 

 

I mean you say that where is the evidence which proves they may be guilty of accidental drug overdose, why don't you show us evidence that proves they're not? There's no evidence of an abduction, there was no evidence of a break in and there was most certainly no evidence of a kidnapper, so ask yourselves this? Who's the liar?

And now we're back to the invisible pink unicorn fallacy. You can't insist on a negative proof when it is you who has made the questionable argument, it's really silly. By the same logic I could claim that she was abducted by aliens, and then ask you to prove that she wasn't abducted by aliens. So, to prove the fundamental flaw in this argument, produce evidence that says she wasn't abducted by aliens?

 

 

It's took them 6 years now, yet they are still making up new things as they go along? That's the sign of innocence to you is it?

Totally unfounded allegation, retract or support with actual evidence.

 

 

The McCann's are some of the most, scripted, twisted, formulaic, emotionless and completely rehearsed parents I've ever seen in my life.

Opinion and conjecture, irrelevant and apparently ignorant of the fact that they are rehearsed, as I've already explained once. It isn't uncommon- nay, I would go as far as to say it is completely normal, for people in their situation to have received extensive training on how to present themselves to the press, how to be interviewed ect. If you want to use this as evidence that they're culpable you'll have to do some much better research into it and effectively demonstrate that it's something more nefarious than them being professionally trained how to behave. No-one likes a wailing mother for more than about 5 minutes.

 

 

It's just mind boggling that people are allowing them to twist evidence in their own favor and sue anyone who even dares to use constructive criticism against the claims the McCann's have made on the case?

Here I'll agree, to some extent, but the fact of the matter is that most of this apparent "constructive criticism" is libel, slander or baseless accusations. If it had basis in reality, it wouldn't be slander by UK law, yet they seem to keep winning cases regarding allegations made against them, even though the lawyers of the people they're contesting (like some of the big press organisations) are if anything better than their own in cases of libel and slander. Also, there's the fact people keep settling out of court with them. If they had the evidence to back up their assertions, obtained legally and properly, they wouldn't keep backing down.

 

 

The McCann's wanted this documentary banned? The question is why? Why were they that persistent on getting rid of this single documentary for? I mean If they didn't have anything to do with it, why are they so eager to ban something or stop anyone from having their say in the first place?

I don't know, but yet again it's hardly evidence of a malevolent plot. The reasoning used here is...well, I really don't know how to describe it. There are innumerate reasons why the McCann's could want a certain documentary banned- some of which covered above; libel and slander being the two that spring to mind. Rather than asking everyone "why else would they want to be rid of the documentary", how about you provide some evidence to explain why them wanting to prevent it airing is explicit proof that they murdered their child. Properly sourced, and with supporting evidence, please.

 

 

I was just saying that the claims on the website were not scientifically complex enough to be doubted, since sivispacem was saying how the website are a laughing stock for mucking something up it'd not really evident when contemplating simple speculation backed up by existing evidence, they are just possible outcomes of the case we should consider, backed up by evidence, a lot of which the Mccanns and the witnesses have already spoken of.

The thing is that some of them actually are. This is the problem with conspiracy theory sites like this- they make arguments that are very convincing to people who've not got the foggiest idea what they're talking about, but which don't stand up under any scrutiny. I mean, take your initial quoting from that website and my response as an example there- none of the things I pointed out are exactly beyond the realms of common knowledge, and none of them are particularly complex issues. They all effectively invalidate the arguments being made (most of the website is just filler and appeals to emotion and other informal fallacies, there's very little actual comprehensible argument there) and it took me one read and all of five minutes to rebut. There's no use of academic sources- in fact, no real sources to speak of- most of the claims are based on conjecture and hearsay, and most of them don't actually demonstrate anything other than the McCann's behaving irrationally, which isn't a crime as far as I'm aware and certainly isn't an indicator of guilt.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Wrong actually, sivispacem, we do have evidence, we have a documentary from the Portuguese police proving that the abduction theory isn't viable nor coherent, you could say that it was only a nosebleed like the McCann's are claiming, but when you take in consideration that the abduction theory in general is complete fallacy anyway, it seems like more of an excuse than it is the truth.

 

Kate and Gerry made a vow to never leave Portugal until their daughter was found, 6 years latter they come up with 6 new suspects to further prolong their cover up of there being an abduction in the United Kingdom. Now, you tell me? Why do you think they left Portugal at the time they were potential suspects by the Portuguese police?

 

The thing is though sivispacem, they are not professionally trained, as there are many occasions where either they change the subject of the matter of discussion or throw their toys out of the pram, for example when ever an interviewer talks about let's say Robert Murat to Gerry, he seems to have a surge of insecurity flow through him as he refuses to answer any questions on the subject of that particular matter?

Edited October 27, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Wrong actually, sivispacem, we do have evidence, we have a documentary from the Portuguese police proving that the abduction theory isn't viable nor coherent

 

That's not evidence, that's supposition.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Supposition? Hardly, as the documentary goes into full detail why an abduction is completely impossible, for example the window. The police reported no signs of any break ins, with that in mind, along the demonstration of a kidnapper not being able to get through the window easily while holding a child at the same time anyway in the documentary further makes the abduction theory a complete fallacy and has zero relevance with the actual case in hand.

Edited October 27, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Supposition? Hardly

I'm not talking about the documentary, I'm talking about you. You've claimed this documentary, which is from the Portuguese police (yeah, I don't buy that for a second) offers empirical and undeniable proof that a kidnapping was completely impossible. But you haven't actually presented this documentary, or disclosed how it offers such proof, or given us anything to refer to. So it's supposition on your part; you're effectively saying "suppose there was this documentary" because you've not provided one, just claimed one exists.

 

as the documentary goes into full detail why an abduction is completely impossible, for example the window. The police reported no signs of any break ins, with that in mind, along the demonstration of a kidnapper not being able to get through the window easily while holding a child at the same time anyway in the documentary further makes the abduction theory a complete fallacy and has zero relevance with the actual case in hand.

As above, I'll leave providing evidence for the existence of this documentary, its direct relation to the Portuguese police, the infallible nature of its claims and its merit-worthiness as a source of impartial information to you to explain.

 

Also, just to refer to something you said above:

 

Now, you tell me? Why do you think they left Portugal at the time they were potential suspects by the Portuguese police?

 

The very simple answer to this is because Portugal and the UK are both EU member states. Citizens of EU nations cannot be detained more than I believe it is 72 hours at the behest of another EU nation without being charged with a criminal action. Thereafter, if there was any requirement to charge the McCanns, they would be arrested by British police and extradited to Portugal under the existing EU laws, which permit effectively free movement of persons. Technically the treaty is designed so it is no more difficult for an individual to be arrested, questioned and charged for a crime in a neighbouring or distant EU nation than it is in their home nation.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Are you blind? I already posted the documentary, it's literally on this page?

 

I shall post it again for you.

 

 

 

If they are innocent and said evidence checks out that they are, then surely there's no need to leave Portugal at all? This on top of the fact that Kate McCann blatantly refused to answer all 48 questions from the Portuguese police doesn't seem to support the idea that they aren't hiding anything, if anything it reinforces the idea to a great extent. If Kate really wanted her daughter back then surely you'd expect her as a parent to contribute in actually helping the police find her daughter?

Edited October 27, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

I didn't see that above. Regardless, who wrote the documentary? What prior credit do they have? My issue is with the actual quality of the documentary itself as a source. I don't tend to really pay much attention to home-made documentaries that appear on YouTube. We come down to the issue of credibility. Do you have any evidence to suggest this is something with a decent amount of credibility? I mean, look at all of those abysmal, factually inaccurate 9/11 conspiracy theory documentaries.

 

If the claims made in the documentary have any merit, surely they appear in other sources? Care to provide these?

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Gonçalo Amaral, the former coordinator of the Madeleine McCann investigation, has contacted the editor of his book, “Maddie: The Truth About The Lie”, seeking to recover its copyright, with the ultimate purpose of publishing the book in the UK himself.

Based on the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine, “The Truth About The Lie” has sold over 200 thousand copies in Portugal, and has been translated and published in several countries, like France, the Netherlands,Germany, Denmark, Spain and Belgium.

A documentary that is based on the book was broadcast by TVIin Portugal and reached an audience of 2,2 million viewers, was sold and broadcast in other countries, like Spain and Denmark, where it generated added interest in the case.

"The Truth About The Lie" has not been published in the UK, where no editor seems to be willing to risk upsetting the McCann couple.

Similarly, the documentary has not been broadcast by any British television channel.

Many British citizens have been forced to search for, and watch,the documentary on the internet, in order to access factual information that has otherwise not been made available by the UK media, in general.

 

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/

 

People who claim that this is purely him trying to get money out of people, can read his actual book on his official web site, Foreword and chapter 1 to 22 of his investigation.

Edited October 27, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking the same person who was arrested and charged for apparently beating the confession out of a woman, no? I don't really see him as a reliable witness, especially seen as the official line of both his police force and that of the UK is that the McCanns were innocent. I mean, how far does any alleged cover-up stretch? Does it, for instance, stretch to Control Risks Group who are the strategic risk consultancy and private investigations firm who've conducted most of the private work into the case? The Portuguese attorney general, who stated that the McCanns had no case to answer, is directly politically accountable. Does that mean the Portuguese government started the whole cover-up, or was complicit in it?

 

Amaral is at best a solitary, unreliable witness. At worst he's a corrupt woman beater with a history of accusing parents of killing their children.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking the same person who was arrested and charged for apparently beating the confession out of a woman, no? I don't really see him as a reliable witness, especially seen as the official line of both his police force and that of the UK is that the McCanns were innocent. I mean, how far does any alleged cover-up stretch? Does it, for instance, stretch to Control Risks Group who are the strategic risk consultancy and private investigations firm who've conducted most of the private work into the case? The Portuguese attorney general, who stated that the McCanns had no case to answer, is directly politically accountable. Does that mean the Portuguese government started the whole cover-up, or was complicit in it?

 

Amaral is at best a solitary, unreliable witness. At worst he's a corrupt woman beater with a history of accusing parents of killing their children.

 

You think it's unique or rare for this to happen? I can guarantee that interrogation techniques such as this can be seen all over the world, you'd have to be a naive child to believe otherwise. You know at first you made some relevant points on this topic, but now your spouting things you have no full comprehension of. You went as far to say that the REASON that Amaral is an unreliable witness is because the Portuguese police beat up women in interrogation? O.K, and, why does that make Amaral an unreliable witness, even though technically he's an investigator not a witness? He's PROVEN that the abduction theory is completely impossible? How dare you say that he isn't reliable, I could easily say how FOX news, ABC, CNN are unreliable due to their constant bias on violent video games and media as well as their overall stupidity, unprofessional attitude for wasting viewers time with such incoherent and bigoted one sided reports! Mostly religious ones, you know the ones that claim atheists are worshipers of the devil or such nonsense?

Edited October 27, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Simmer the f*ck down.

 

 

You think it's unique or rare for this to happen?

What to happen, abductions or police officers beating the sh*t out of women to try and get them to confess to crimes? I'm sure the latter happens more than anyone particularly would like but that doesn't mean it's common. And the former is extremely rare.

 

 

I can guarantee that interrogation techniques such as this can be seen all over the world, you'd have to be a naive child to believe otherwise.

Well, I'm sorry that your guarantee is totally worthless, and doubly sorry that you seem unable to comprehend the idea that insisting something is true doesn't make it so. You're also missing the point. The guy whose making these claims is alleged to have beaten a women to the point that she admitted murdering her own child in circumstances very similar to the McCann case, and despite a lack of anything other than circumstantial evidence. The investigator jumped before he was pushed when this came to light and no longer works for the police department. Quite aside from the questionable validity of your point (claiming that police brutality happens more frequently that I think it does doesn't actually respond to my argument in any way), you've done nothing to explain why he's a credible source of information, given that he's got had the prospect of a serious criminal offence hanging over him (I don't know what's come of it to be honest), got kicked off the McCann case by the Portuguese attorney general, and appears to have misogynist tendencies at the very least.

 

 

You know at first you made some relevant points on this topic, but now your spouting things you have no full comprehension of.

f*cking irony.

 

 

You went as far to say that the REASON that Amaral is an unreliable witness is because the Portuguese police beat up women in interrogation?

Yes, and with good reason.

 

 

O.K, and, why does that make Amaral an unreliable witness, even though technically he's an investigator not a witness?

Well, there's the fact that he's been alleged to have acted improperly in a similar abduction case, forcing someone to sign false testimony under violent duress. Read what you will from that his attitude to cases of this nature. He was kicked off the case by the Portuguese attorney general for unspecified derelictions of duty and improper behaviour, and was then forced to resign from the Portuguese police force wholesale. If his views were valid, realistic and based in evidence, don't you think the Portuguese authorities would have listened to them instead of telling the McCanns they had no case to answer? Or do you know better than the combined might of the Portuguese and British judicial systems? Or are they all part of a big conspiracy.

 

 

He's PROVEN that the abduction theory is completely impossible?

No, he's alleged that the abduction story is impossible The attorney general, a highly specialist private investigations company, numerous external experts, the British police and a fair few other parties happen to disagree.

 

 

How dare you say that he isn't reliable

For good reasons, that I've explained clearly above.

 

The rest of your post was barely comprehensible drivel.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

sivispacem, I don't care what you think anymore. You continue to talk nonsense, it's like going round in circles with you and I say enough, or are you really that determined to make me believe that corruption is a myth!? You're clearly one sided, then again it's your job I guess, since you've already disclosed that you work for the government involving security? Call it a conspiracy all you like, it's not going to make me pretend that we can put our trust in the government or our biased media, not all conspiracies are stupid. Remember that!

 

Ask yourself this? How come they are the only parents that received help from Gordon Brown, as well as many other VIP's? Any other family wouldn't merit such support? For all you know Amaral may have been framed to ensure that the McCann's would have no further problems with him exposing their true nature to the public. Just hope you know that the McCann's sympathy is running out.

 

 

Yes, I do believe everything has been covered up, after all I have already witnessed corruption and bias from our selfish, disloyal government, My Stepdad has written probably about 5000 letters just to get justice, he's unable to get to sleep properly and he is very stressed that he hasn't gotten any further to claiming his rights! I've seen corruption with my own two eyes, to playing the race card and bribery. I find hard to trust anything these days. Voting is pointless, politicians only make life easier for themselves while we struggle to get a decent living, money is what makes the world go round, nothing else.

 

Why don't you use your own brain for once? I shouldn't have to explain everything, you're clearly smart enough to do research yourself, so why don't you stop relying on people to give YOU the information. You're the one who's claimed Amaral was a wife beater, not me, so why don't YOU show me the evidence that proves that he isn't just simply being framed to further protect the grand profit scheme the McCann's have going for themselves!

 

Your sources only seem to come from the people who are protecting the McCanns, oh and let's not forget that the BBC has already protected a pedophile, but I guess their NEWS is still a relevant source right? Trust them you say? Don't make me laugh! Corruption is everywhere you look and everywhere you go, how else do you think politics came about?

Edited October 27, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[sivispacem]

Nice job of not addressing anything I've actually said, making wild and baseless accusations, posting YouTube videos as evidence, descending into totally irrelevant personal anecdotes, conducting ad hominem attacks and generally behaving like a bit of a child whose thrown his toys out of the pram. Does every discussion on every topic involve you throwing a massive hissy-fit at anyone who dares to question your sage wisdom on any subject, and, horror of horrors, point out that you may not actually know what you're talking about? Or is it just coincidence that the only two topics I've seen you active in over the last month or so have resulted in you having a paddy for no reason?

 

Also, I don't work for the, or any, government.

[ROCKGTASTAR]

Nice job of not addressing anything I've actually said, making wild and baseless accusations, posting YouTube videos as evidence, descending into totally irrelevant personal anecdotes, conducting ad hominem attacks and generally behaving like a bit of a child whose thrown his toys out of the pram. Does every discussion on every topic involve you throwing a massive hissy-fit at anyone who dares to question your sage wisdom on any subject, and, horror of horrors, point out that you may not actually know what you're talking about? Or is it just coincidence that the only two topics I've seen you active in over the last month or so have resulted in you having a paddy for no reason?

 

Also, I don't work for the, or any, government.

 

What about the wild baseless accusations you've made? You said that Amaral was a wife beater, you've showed no proof of this.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I going to request this to be locked, I think it's fairly obvious that this would be for the best, were all making assumptions at the end of the day. There is no point to this continuing any further.

Edited October 28, 2013 by ROCKGTASTAR

[Otter]

I'm sorry but I going to request this to be locked

 

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It's an interesting conversation, to say the least. Learn to play nicely with others, please.

[Finn 7 five 11]

Why the hell would they want to kill their own daughter?

 

Kate and Gerry McCann have kept on campaigning to try and find out what happened to Madeleine, and have made numerous appearances on TV over the years. They've been in the public spotlight almost continuously, and through choice.

 

If they were responsible for her murder or her death and they tried to cover it up, then I'm pretty sure they'd try to attract as little attention as possible to themselves. No one could blame them if they just wanted to have their privacy and stay away from the public glare.

 

But that's not what they've done. They have through choice, decided to try and keep Madeleine on people's minds by putting themselves on TV, in newspapers, on the radio. They so clearly want their daughter back or to find out what happened to her, and they have campaigned with great effort to keep up the awareness of Madeleine in people's consciousness because they know it will aid them in finding their daughter.

 

They could actually be doing all of those things for money, I'm sure all forms of media would willingly pay good money to have the Mcann's for interviews, everybody wants to know about it and find out what happened, I mean, sure, it's unconventional, but it seems like the perfect way to seem innocent, have everyone sympathize with them.

 

However there isn't enough evidence to prove it, so we'll most likely never know. I think they probably did do it, but without hard proof it's not fair to send them to prison.

[sivispacem]

What about the wild baseless accusations you've made? You said that Amaral was a wife beater, you've showed no proof of this.

No, I've said that he's been accused of beating a female suspect into confessing. That's not a baseless allegation, because it's true- he was accused of it. He was also removed from the Madeline case at the behest of the Portuguese attorney general, and convicted of falsifying evidence in the earlier case (source #1, source #2).

 

It's also worth noting that there were three child disappearances within a 7-mile radius around Aljezur and Praia-da-Luz between 1996 and 2006- Madeline McCann, Joana Cipriano and Renè Hasèe. That's an extremely important statistical anomaly, and well outside the bounds of what could be considered a coincidence.

Edited October 28, 2013 by sivispacem