Madeleine McCann

[mackenzie]

Oh dear....
Somebodies removing some of my posts.
Makes continuing any discussion pointless.
Sad that some people just don't like facts that they don't agree with.
(assuming this post isn't deleted as well)

Which posts? Your posts on this thread have hardly been controversial surely?

 

[brooklandsblue2.0]

There is always another theory about the dogs of course; that the 'evidence' was planted. It took them three months to use the dogs, when their practices were already well under discussion and coming in for criticism. It took them 12 hours to even set up roadblocks and checks.
They knew they had loused up and went for the 'easy target', the parents. I'm not surprised the parents were reticent by this point, what with the hideously mangled translation on offer I don't think I would have been receptive to being questioned either!

Shh you must not criticise those nice Portuguese police.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There is always another theory about the dogs of course; that the 'evidence' was planted. It took them three months to use the dogs, when their practices were already well under discussion and coming in for criticism. It took them 12 hours to even set up roadblocks and checks.
They knew they had loused up and went for the 'easy target', the parents. I'm not surprised the parents were reticent by this point, what with the hideously mangled translation on offer I don't think I would have been receptive to being questioned either!

Shh you must not criticise those nice Portuguese police.

They screwed up big time which made any outcome one way or another highly unlikely.

 

[mackenzie]

There is always another theory about the dogs of course; that the 'evidence' was planted. It took them three months to use the dogs, when their practices were already well under discussion and coming in for criticism. It took them 12 hours to even set up roadblocks and checks.
They knew they had loused up and went for the 'easy target', the parents. I'm not surprised the parents were reticent by this point, what with the hideously mangled translation on offer I don't think I would have been receptive to being questioned either!

Shh you must not criticise those nice Portuguese police.

They screwed up big time which made any outcome one way or another highly unlikely.

Question about a coroners role PB. my cousin is a coroner in Canada and am pretty sure she has to come into close contact with dead bodies. Like you posted earlier, I have always thought a coroner's role an administrative one, but perhaps it can be different overseas?

 

[SWP's back]

Do coroners sit in cupboards for 2 hours then hop in hire car boots for the rest of the afternoon?

 

[mackenzie]

There is always another theory about the dogs of course; that the 'evidence' was planted. It took them three months to use the dogs, when their practices were already well under discussion and coming in for criticism. It took them 12 hours to even set up roadblocks and checks.
They knew they had loused up and went for the 'easy target', the parents. I'm not surprised the parents were reticent by this point, what with the hideously mangled translation on offer I don't think I would have been receptive to being questioned either!

Shh you must not criticise those nice Portuguese police.

Or mention that someone within that close circle of Police gave the mobile numbers of the mccanns to a reporter?
Perish the very thought?!

 

[mackenzie]

Do coroners sit in cupboards for 2 hours then hop in hire car boots for the rest of the afternoon?

Probably not, no.
Just Brits accidentally/purposely killing a much loved child, getting the world media involved ASAP, lobbing the said child's body into the ocean and/or burying it/hiding it somewhere for 3 weeks then loading it into a rental car.
Like you do.

 

[Bilboblue]

just read through this whole thread.
Fascinating stuff and many things I had not read before.

I seem to remember reading that the area the 'silent 9' were dining in, was just about visible from the McCanns veranda, now call me naive, but especially as it was Madeleines mother that discovered her 'missing' surely the VERY FIRST thing she would have done would have been to scream her heart out from said veranda to alert people that something was wrong.

Being a parent myself, if something had happened to my son while away (I would NEVER have left him alone) the FIRST thing I would have done would have been to let everyone know within earshot that something was amiss, not go back to where I was dining, a mere minutes walk away. I just cannot even think of one reason why she did not do that if she was innocent.

Thanks to whomever posted that list of questions the mother refused to answer, first time I saw that, I have to say I cannot even think for one single second, of ANY reason why she would have refused to answer ANY single question about her daughters disappearance, unfathomable.

Someone else posted about possible financial difficulties the McCanns were experiencing at the time, can you expand on that please, with links or quotes?

I have always had a feeling about this case that something was not quite right, especially after hearing they left the twins with others when they went to Rome. If that was me, and I had the other children with me, they would never have left my sight for months, or even years.

Thanks for everyones informative posts on here, and BB2 you've been an arse.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Interesting reading through this thread, especially all the different opinions and theories off people on this sad story!
I have stated numerous times (on the many threads that crop up on this story) that I do not believe for one minute that the parents killed her!
Maybe I'm naive and too trustworthy to believe they had something to do with her going missing , maybe I'm not aware of all the facts regarding this case??
I still keep coming back to the same point when someone suggests they killed her......where did they hide the body and how has it not been found if they did do it?
I mean if they did kill her and hide the body, I feel they would of panicked and made a hash of hiding it!
Pure speculation i agree...just as all the other stuff is!
I do think some people do go over the top with the sniffer dog theories etc....pure fantasy imo!

well im not 100% on the whole case but the fact that the sniffer dog has a 100% record and picked the scent of a dead body in the house and on the boot of the car doesn't suggest pure fantasy to me.

As neither the apartment nor the car belonged to the McCanns and were both rented, it really wouldn't be difficult to create reasonable doubt around the sniffer dog's evidence, even if it does have a 100% record. That's why it wouldn't be relied on as central to any prosecution case.

And as for the questions, this thread is the first time I've ever seen them written out in full and I'm not surprised that she didn't answer them. Not exactly the most unprejudiced set of questions they could have put to her, are they? By the time these questions had been drawn up, they'd obviously already decided that she was guilty; these questions weren't designed to help find Maddie, they were designed purely to get Kate McCann to set herself up. Throw in the fact that some of them are quite strangely worded, as well as the huge potential for critical details to become corrupted in translation, and I wouldn't have answered them either.

People say "Surely you'd answer any questions if it would help find your missing daughter", but rmember, Kate McCann wholeheartedly believes her daughter was abducted and that she had nothing to do with it; under that scenario, answering this particular set of questions wouldn't help one iota. Those questions are effectively a prosecution case against Kate McCann; she'd have been insane to answer them.

 

[SWP's back]

I agree. Any guilty party would be crazy to answer them.

 

[M18CTID]

just read through this whole thread.
Fascinating stuff and many things I had not read before.

I seem to remember reading that the area the 'silent 9' were dining in, was just about visible from the McCanns veranda, now call me naive, but especially as it was Madeleines mother that discovered her 'missing' surely the VERY FIRST thing she would have done would have been to scream her heart out from said veranda to alert people that something was wrong.

Being a parent myself, if something had happened to my son while away (I would NEVER have left him alone) the FIRST thing I would have done would have been to let everyone know within earshot that something was amiss, not go back to where I was dining, a mere minutes walk away. I just cannot even think of one reason why she did not do that if she was innocent.

Thanks to whomever posted that list of questions the mother refused to answer, first time I saw that, I have to say I cannot even think for one single second, of ANY reason why she would have refused to answer ANY single question about her daughters disappearance, unfathomable.

Someone else posted about possible financial difficulties the McCanns were experiencing at the time, can you expand on that please, with links or quotes?

I have always had a feeling about this case that something was not quite right, especially after hearing they left the twins with others when they went to Rome. If that was me, and I had the other children with me, they would never have left my sight for months, or even years.

Thanks for everyones informative posts on here, and BB2 you've been an arse.

What needs to be added to this is that although the restaurant was just in the line of sight from their apartment, it couldn't be accessed in a straight line from there - Kate McCann would've had to exit the grounds through a side gate and make her way round to the restaurant.<br /><br />-- Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 am --<br /><br />

I agree. Any guilty party would be crazy to answer them.

LOL!

I can see where DB is coming from but surely she would've had a solicitor present - and a damn good one at that - so any refusal to answer so many questions just makes the whole thing look worse.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I agree. Any guilty party would be crazy to answer them.

I don't agree. Guilty or innocent, I wouldn't be answering most of those questions either as they've been specifically designed to cast even further doubt on the respondent. And assuming that Maddie is missing (which is what an innocent Kate McCann would presumably believe), answering these questions would offer no assistance whatsoever in trying to find her.

I have no idea whether the parents are guilty or innocent. But I can certainly see why an innocent person would choose not to answer such a prejudiced set of questions.

Some people are claiming that her not answering these questions is some sort of smoking gun that proves she was involved somehow. I just don't view it like that. And as with most of the other 'evidence' against her, it would be ripped to shreds in court by any worthwhile defence.

As for the suggestion that she would have had a solicitor with her, I'm sure she did. And if that solicitor was doing his job properly it would have been him who told her not to answer such ridiculously loaded questions that have been designed to get her to incriminate herself.

The Portugese police fucked this investigation up in so many ways, one of which was going after the McCanns so obviously and so aggressively. They were about as subtle with their suspicions as a brick to the head. If the McCanns were indeed involved, the police's handling of their questioning ensured they would never find out.

 

[SWP's back]

I agree. Any guilty party would be crazy to answer them.

I don't agree. Guilty or innocent, I wouldn't be answering most of those questions either as they've been specifically designed to cast even further doubt on the respondent. And assuming that Maddie is missing (which is what an innocent Kate McCann would presumably believe), answering these questions would offer no assistance whatsoever in trying to find her.

I have no idea whether the parents are guilty or innocent. But I can certainly see why an innocent person would choose not to answer such a prejudiced set of questions.

Some people are claiming that her not answering these questions is some sort of smoking gun that proves she was involved somehow. I just don't view it like that. And as with most of the other 'evidence' against her, it would be ripped to shreds in court by any worthwhile defence.

As for the suggestion that she would have had a solicitor with her, I'm sure she did. And if that solicitor was doing his job properly it would have been him who told her not to answer such ridiculously loaded questions that have been designed to get her to incriminate herself.

The Portugese police fucked this investigation up in so many ways, one of which was going after the McCanns so obviously and so aggressively. They were about as subtle with their suspicions as a brick to the head. If the McCanns were indeed involved, the police's handling of their questioning ensured they would never find out.

When were the questions asked though? I thought they were early on and well before the parents were considered as suspects.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I agree. Any guilty party would be crazy to answer them.

I don't agree. Guilty or innocent, I wouldn't be answering most of those questions either as they've been specifically designed to cast even further doubt on the respondent. And assuming that Maddie is missing (which is what an innocent Kate McCann would presumably believe), answering these questions would offer no assistance whatsoever in trying to find her.

I have no idea whether the parents are guilty or innocent. But I can certainly see why an innocent person would choose not to answer such a prejudiced set of questions.

Some people are claiming that her not answering these questions is some sort of smoking gun that proves she was involved somehow. I just don't view it like that. And as with most of the other 'evidence' against her, it would be ripped to shreds in court by any worthwhile defence.

As for the suggestion that she would have had a solicitor with her, I'm sure she did. And if that solicitor was doing his job properly it would have been him who told her not to answer such ridiculously loaded questions that have been designed to get her to incriminate herself.

The Portugese police fucked this investigation up in so many ways, one of which was going after the McCanns so obviously and so aggressively. They were about as subtle with their suspicions as a brick to the head. If the McCanns were indeed involved, the police's handling of their questioning ensured they would never find out.

When were the questions asked though? I thought they were early on and well before the parents were considered as suspects.

September 7, 2007, apparently. The same day they were officially brought in as 'arguidos'.

 

[M18CTID]

I agree. Any guilty party would be crazy to answer them.

I don't agree. Guilty or innocent, I wouldn't be answering most of those questions either as they've been specifically designed to cast even further doubt on the respondent. And assuming that Maddie is missing (which is what an innocent Kate McCann would presumably believe), answering these questions would offer no assistance whatsoever in trying to find her.

I have no idea whether the parents are guilty or innocent. But I can certainly see why an innocent person would choose not to answer such a prejudiced set of questions.

Some people are claiming that her not answering these questions is some sort of smoking gun that proves she was involved somehow. I just don't view it like that. And as with most of the other 'evidence' against her, it would be ripped to shreds in court by any worthwhile defence.

As for the suggestion that she would have had a solicitor with her, I'm sure she did. And if that solicitor was doing his job properly it would have been him who told her not to answer such ridiculously loaded questions that have been designed to get her to incriminate herself.

The Portugese police fucked this investigation up in so many ways, one of which was going after the McCanns so obviously and so aggressively. They were about as subtle with their suspicions as a brick to the head. If the McCanns were indeed involved, the police's handling of their questioning ensured they would never find out.

Isn't aggressive questioning the norm when somebody is under suspicion? Besides, they went after Robert Murat first and foremost - how do we know they weren't equally as agressive with interrogating him? Also, there are plenty of people showing sympathy for the McCanns but the press did a disgusting hatchet job on Murat and hardly anyone cares about that.

It was only as time went on that the finger of suspicion began to point in the direction of the McCanns - probably initiated by the fact that the accounts given by them and their friends didn't quite make sense and had more holes in them than a gorgonzola cheese. You see, it's not just the unanswered questions we're talking about here - there are plenty of other things, many of them covered by Prestwich Blue - that don't quite add up.

I will add that to counter this, I still find it difficult to comprehend how they could've continued to carry this off in full glare of the public if they were guilty of something.

 

[SWP's back]

I don't agree. Guilty or innocent, I wouldn't be answering most of those questions either as they've been specifically designed to cast even further doubt on the respondent. And assuming that Maddie is missing (which is what an innocent Kate McCann would presumably believe), answering these questions would offer no assistance whatsoever in trying to find her.

I have no idea whether the parents are guilty or innocent. But I can certainly see why an innocent person would choose not to answer such a prejudiced set of questions.

Some people are claiming that her not answering these questions is some sort of smoking gun that proves she was involved somehow. I just don't view it like that. And as with most of the other 'evidence' against her, it would be ripped to shreds in court by any worthwhile defence.

As for the suggestion that she would have had a solicitor with her, I'm sure she did. And if that solicitor was doing his job properly it would have been him who told her not to answer such ridiculously loaded questions that have been designed to get her to incriminate herself.

The Portugese police fucked this investigation up in so many ways, one of which was going after the McCanns so obviously and so aggressively. They were about as subtle with their suspicions as a brick to the head. If the McCanns were indeed involved, the police's handling of their questioning ensured they would never find out.

When were the questions asked though? I thought they were early on and well before the parents were considered as suspects.

September 7, 2007, apparently. The same day they were officially brought in as 'arguidos'.

Yey. My birthday.

I tend to agree with what M18CTID says above though.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I agree. Any guilty party would be crazy to answer them.

I don't agree. Guilty or innocent, I wouldn't be answering most of those questions either as they've been specifically designed to cast even further doubt on the respondent. And assuming that Maddie is missing (which is what an innocent Kate McCann would presumably believe), answering these questions would offer no assistance whatsoever in trying to find her.

I have no idea whether the parents are guilty or innocent. But I can certainly see why an innocent person would choose not to answer such a prejudiced set of questions.

Some people are claiming that her not answering these questions is some sort of smoking gun that proves she was involved somehow. I just don't view it like that. And as with most of the other 'evidence' against her, it would be ripped to shreds in court by any worthwhile defence.

As for the suggestion that she would have had a solicitor with her, I'm sure she did. And if that solicitor was doing his job properly it would have been him who told her not to answer such ridiculously loaded questions that have been designed to get her to incriminate herself.

The Portugese police fucked this investigation up in so many ways, one of which was going after the McCanns so obviously and so aggressively. They were about as subtle with their suspicions as a brick to the head. If the McCanns were indeed involved, the police's handling of their questioning ensured they would never find out.

Isn't aggressive questioning the norm when somebody is under suspicion? Besides, they went after Robert Murat first and foremost - how do we know they weren't equally as agressive with interrogating him? Also, there are plenty of people showing sympathy for the McCanns but the press did a disgusting hatchet job on Murat and hardly anyone cares about that.

It was only as time went on that the finger of suspicion began to point in the direction of the McCanns - probably initiated by the fact that the accounts given by them and their friends didn't quite make sense and had more holes in them than a gorgonzola cheese. You see, it's not just the unanswered questions we're talking about here - there are plenty of other things, many of them covered by Prestwich Blue - that don't quite add up.

I will add that to counter this, I still find it difficult to comprehend how they could've continued to carry this off in full glare of the public if they were guilty of something.

I'm sure they probably were aggressive with Murat and he certainly has my full sympathy. I completely agree that the press behaved in a disgusting manner and he fully deserved the considerable libel damages that were paid out to him by a number of newspapers.

But my point about the McCanns is that they were always going to be there and it was foolish to go after them so strongly with nothing concrete to back their suspicions up with. They hinged everything on Kate McCann incriminating heself by answering these questions and tying up all the other pieces of circumstantial evidence. When she didn't, they hit a brick wall because there is nothing else. Had they been a bit more subtle in their approach, they may well have garnered more meaningful information over a longer period of time. Basically, I think they went on the attack far too quickly.

Edit: And, may I add, I suspect that the police either weren't seeking a conviction or knew that there wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction. Why else would they play their cards (in the form of these questions) so early on? Why not save those questions for an ensuing court case? Why forewarn her of the very holes in her story that the prosecution was going to base its case on? All they sought was to cast enough doubt on the parents and they achieved that. With that happily in the bag, they wrapped it all up and told them to fuck off back to England. Job done.

 

[fulabeer]

Oh dear....
Somebodies removing some of my posts.
Makes continuing any discussion pointless.
Sad that some people just don't like facts that they don't agree with.
(assuming this post isn't deleted as well)

Which posts? Your posts on this thread have hardly been controversial surely?

I'm not sure were my post went. It was only describing my involvement with dealing with dead bodies when i was on the railways.
I'm not rewriting it as it took a while, but it outlined what the Coroners Office does and what procedures need to be followed.
When searching for bodies, we used Police dogs. They are only of limited use, and the more people in the search area, the less affective they are. I have seen many a dog get confused and have to be withdrawn. Police dogs are brilliant but flawed tools...

 

[M18CTID]

Oh dear....
Somebodies removing some of my posts.
Makes continuing any discussion pointless.
Sad that some people just don't like facts that they don't agree with.
(assuming this post isn't deleted as well)

Which posts? Your posts on this thread have hardly been controversial surely?

I'm not sure were my post went. It was only describing my involvement with dealing with dead bodies when i was on the railways.
I'm not rewriting it as it took a while, but it outlined what the Coroners Office does and what procedures need to be followed.
When searching for bodies, we used Police dogs. They are only of limited use, and the more people in the search area, the less affective they are. I have seen many a dog get confused and have to be withdrawn. Police dogs are brilliant but flawed tools...

As far as I know, only the mods have the power to delete posts and as none of yours have been offensive then there was no need to delete them. Are you sure there wasn't an error or something when you posted?<br /><br />-- Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:40 am --<br /><br />

I don't agree. Guilty or innocent, I wouldn't be answering most of those questions either as they've been specifically designed to cast even further doubt on the respondent. And assuming that Maddie is missing (which is what an innocent Kate McCann would presumably believe), answering these questions would offer no assistance whatsoever in trying to find her.

I have no idea whether the parents are guilty or innocent. But I can certainly see why an innocent person would choose not to answer such a prejudiced set of questions.

Some people are claiming that her not answering these questions is some sort of smoking gun that proves she was involved somehow. I just don't view it like that. And as with most of the other 'evidence' against her, it would be ripped to shreds in court by any worthwhile defence.

As for the suggestion that she would have had a solicitor with her, I'm sure she did. And if that solicitor was doing his job properly it would have been him who told her not to answer such ridiculously loaded questions that have been designed to get her to incriminate herself.

The Portugese police fucked this investigation up in so many ways, one of which was going after the McCanns so obviously and so aggressively. They were about as subtle with their suspicions as a brick to the head. If the McCanns were indeed involved, the police's handling of their questioning ensured they would never find out.

Isn't aggressive questioning the norm when somebody is under suspicion? Besides, they went after Robert Murat first and foremost - how do we know they weren't equally as agressive with interrogating him? Also, there are plenty of people showing sympathy for the McCanns but the press did a disgusting hatchet job on Murat and hardly anyone cares about that.

It was only as time went on that the finger of suspicion began to point in the direction of the McCanns - probably initiated by the fact that the accounts given by them and their friends didn't quite make sense and had more holes in them than a gorgonzola cheese. You see, it's not just the unanswered questions we're talking about here - there are plenty of other things, many of them covered by Prestwich Blue - that don't quite add up.

I will add that to counter this, I still find it difficult to comprehend how they could've continued to carry this off in full glare of the public if they were guilty of something.

I'm sure they probably were aggressive with Murat and he certainly has my full sympathy. I completely agree that the press behaved in a disgusting manner and he fully deserved the considerable libel damages that were paid out to him by a number of newspapers.

But my point about the McCanns is that they were always going to be there and it was foolish to go after them so strongly with nothing concrete to back their suspicions up with. They hinged everything on Kate McCann incriminating heself by answering these questions and tying up all the other pieces of circumstantial evidence. When she didn't, they hit a brick wall because there is nothing else. Had they been a bit more subtle in their approach, they may well have garnered more meaningful information over a longer period of time. Basically, I think they went on the attack far too quickly.

Edit: And, may I add, I suspect that the police either weren't seeking a conviction or knew that there wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction. Why else would they play their cards (in the form of these questions) so early on? Why not save those questions for an ensuing court case? Why forewarn her of the very holes in her story that the prosecution was going to base its case on? All they sought was to cast enough doubt on the parents and they achieved that. With that happily in the bag, they wrapped it all up and told them to fuck off back to England. Job done.

Just to clarify, the lack of sympathy for Murat comment wasn't aimed at you DB!

Obviously I'm no expert in questioning suspects but I'd be interested to know how the British police, for example, would've gone about it. Would they have asked an entirely different set of questions?

I actually tend to agree with your last paragraph in that I think that while they suspected the McCanns were involved, they didn't have enough to pin it on them and the next best alternative for them was to get them out of the country ASAP (I alluded to this in an earlier post). Whether those questions were part of that plan I don't know. Maybe KM's refusal to answer them left them with nowehere to go, unless fresh evidence (DNA or a body) came to light.

 

[glen quagmire]

Have they been arrested yet?