More money to find missing girl

[AJL308]

CzechItOut said:

AJL308 said:

I'm still at a loss to see what 'evidence', specifically, there is which people claim points towards the parents being involved. I genuinely can't see any.

There is no evidence that they murdered her, killed her by accident, abducted her or were party to any of that done by someone else.

The only evidence is that she is missing and that the last picture known to be taken f her was taken at such and such a time. There is nothing at all pointing towards the parents, jointly or severally, having any involvement.

British sniffer dogs, one trained to identify blood and another dead bodies, both alerted behind the sofa in apartment 5A and later on in the hire car which the McCanns had rented 24 days after Maddie went missing.

DNA evidence from inside the hire car.

Inconsistencies and timelines in the McCann's and Tapa Seven's statements.

Kate McCann's refusal to answer the Portugese police's questions (the so-called 46 questions).

Don't get the wrong, much of this has been brought into question and/or is circumstantial, I don't expect the witness statements to be perfect to the minute, but I certainly think there is enough here for the British police to question the McCanns.

Like you say, more than three weeks after the events in question. How on earth can that be considered to be 'evidence' if they didn't even have the car at the time she disappeared? Is it seriously the suggestion that they moved her body in the hire car three weeks after she died (after hiding it during that time) and managed to get away with it under one of the heaviest levels of press and police scrutiny this century up to that point? Utter fantasy. Sorry but it just is.

DNA evidence inside the car??? DNA evidence of what, precisely, their daughter? Hardly surprising.

None of what you have said is 'evidence' of anything because it doesn't draw you to the conclusion that the parents had anything to do with her disappearance. Not even remotely.

[AJL308]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Why answer them if you think you're being potentially fitted up by a slightly corrupt, or incompetent, foreign police force? The latter point having been pretty well proved.

People are suggesting that it's suspicious that she didn't answer questions which could have helped find her daughter; that's not the case though. The questions were an investigation of her as a suspect and not simply ones trying to find the kid.

[nikaiyo2]

PWeston said:

My money is on the Podesta brothers having some involvement - the police sketches are uncanny. Safe to say they will never be pursued though - too well connected and no amount of money will change that.

Lol no more than Gerry Mcann does.

[Jasandjules]

Ructions said:

If only the parents had spent some money on a babysitter none of us would be having this conversation.

Indeed. I can't imagine doing what they appear to have done - I don't think I could live with myself.

[TheSnitch]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If you watch video of a police interview and the suspect replies ''No Comment'' to every question, what do you tend to conclude? Just out of interest.

[stevebrookman]

For one of the most unbiased investigations, look here:-


http://www.richplanet.net/madeleine.php

[AJL308]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Four months after the disappearance, September 2007. So, questions which were not in any way drafter to find the child - questions which were designed to interrogate a suspect.

[AJL308]

TheSnitch said:

If you watch video of a police interview and the suspect replies ''No Comment'' to every question, what do you tend to conclude? Just out of interest.

Doesn't matter what I'd conclude. If I didn't know anything about the case I'd conclude not a lot, to be honest.

If it were me and I knew I hadn't done it, thought I was being fitted-up and my brief told me to go 'no comment' then have a wild guess at what I'd do.

[rustyuk]

Money shouldn't come into it.

[CzechItOut]

AJL308 said:

Like you say, more than three weeks after the events in question. How on earth can that be considered to be 'evidence' if they didn't even have the car at the time she disappeared? Is it seriously the suggestion that they moved her body in the hire car three weeks after she died (after hiding it during that time) and managed to get away with it under one of the heaviest levels of press and police scrutiny this century up to that point? Utter fantasy. Sorry but it just is.

DNA evidence inside the car??? DNA evidence of what, precisely, their daughter? Hardly surprising.

None of what you have said is 'evidence' of anything because it doesn't draw you to the conclusion that the parents had anything to do with her disappearance. Not even remotely.

How are traces of Maddie in a car they hired 24 days AFTER her disappearance not evidence? The dogs and DNA at least creates suspicion. You'd think the McCanns would then co-operate with the police, but in fact refused to answer questions.

Now, if you wanted the police to stop wasting their time harassing you and get on with finding the real perpetrator, would you answer their questions or respond with a wall of silence. Which approach is more likely to arise suspicion and harden the police's opinion that they are on the right tracks?

[AJL308]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Police interrogators are trained to get the answers they want. If you don't answer anything they can't manipulate you into saying something which can be used against you. That's the whole point as to why there is a right to keep your trap shut.

[TheSnitch]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

She wasn't interviewed much at all, tbh

The first interview was 4th May, the day after Madeleine disappeared and Gerry was allowed to sit in with her, which I find staggering - that would never be allowed in the UK.

The next time she was interviewed was in September, At the end of that interview she was made an arguido, at which point she clammed up. I am assuming it is a bit like being interviewed under caution. She and Gerry had agreed to ''No Comment'' the interviews, but either he bottled it or changed his mind, as he co-operated and she didn't.

[CzechItOut]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

7 September 2007, three months after Madeleine disappeared

[AJL308]

CzechItOut said:

AJL308 said:

Like you say, more than three weeks after the events in question. How on earth can that be considered to be 'evidence' if they didn't even have the car at the time she disappeared? Is it seriously the suggestion that they moved her body in the hire car three weeks after she died (after hiding it during that time) and managed to get away with it under one of the heaviest levels of press and police scrutiny this century up to that point? Utter fantasy. Sorry but it just is.

DNA evidence inside the car??? DNA evidence of what, precisely, their daughter? Hardly surprising.

None of what you have said is 'evidence' of anything because it doesn't draw you to the conclusion that the parents had anything to do with her disappearance. Not even remotely.

How are traces of Maddie in a car they hired 24 days AFTER her disappearance not evidence? The dogs and DNA at least creates suspicion. You'd think the McCanns would then co-operate with the police, but in fact refused to answer questions.

Now, if you wanted the police to stop wasting their time harassing you and get on with finding the real perpetrator, would you answer their questions or respond with a wall of silence. Which approach is more likely to arise suspicion and harden the police's opinion that they are on the right tracks?

I hired a car a few months back when someone kindly wrote mine off for me. Had it a couple of weeks. When I was cleaning it the load area had hairs from my dog on it. The dog had never been in the car. His hair was obviously left there when I'd been loading stuff in and out of it.

I'll ask how can the DNA in the car possibly be evidence??? She disappeared more than three weeks before they even laid eyes on the car FFS! Unless, of course, there is the suggestion that she, or her body, was in it 24 or more days after she disappeared which is an absolutely bat-st crazy assertion. It's total and utter tin-foil hattery.

As to the second part - if you thought you were being fitted-up by a correct or incompetent police force then why would you answer anything? Surely the faster they leave you alone the faster they might find who took your kid, if anyone.

Edited by AJL308 on Thursday 29th March 18:27

[TheSnitch]

AJL308 said:

Like you say, more than three weeks after the events in question. How on earth can that be considered to be 'evidence' if they didn't even have the car at the time she disappeared? Is it seriously the suggestion that they moved her body in the hire car three weeks after she died (after hiding it during that time) and managed to get away with it under one of the heaviest levels of press and police scrutiny this century up to that point? Utter fantasy. Sorry but it just is.

DNA evidence inside the car??? DNA evidence of what, precisely, their daughter? Hardly surprising.

None of what you have said is 'evidence' of anything because it doesn't draw you to the conclusion that the parents had anything to do with her disappearance. Not even remotely.

I think they all got a bit excited at first, probably because of some miscommunication between the UK and Portuguese forces, but I don't think anyone seriously continues to believe they were shifting a body about weeks later. Possible however that items which had been in proximity of the child after her death had picked up the odour of early decomposition and transferred it into the car

[TheSnitch]

stevebrookman said:

For one of the most unbiased investigations, look here:-


http://www.richplanet.net/madeleine.php

You cannot be serious?!

The guy is a raving loon, flat-earther. He has a bonkers theory that Madeleine died early in the holiday and that the entire party maintained a pretence of her still being alive.

Total nutjob

[irocfan]

AJL308 said:

Why answer them if you think you're being potentially fitted up by a slightly corrupt, or incompetent, foreign police force? The latter point having been pretty well proved.

People are suggesting that it's suspicious that she didn't answer questions which could have helped find her daughter; that's not the case though. The questions were an investigation of her as a suspect and not simply ones trying to find the kid.

but isn't it standard practice to question parties close to the case as a potential suspect (eg wife dies, hubby is questioned)?

[FN2TypeR]

stevebrookman said:

For one of the most unbiased investigations, look here:-


http://www.richplanet.net/madeleine.php

[AJL308]

irocfan said:

AJL308 said:

Why answer them if you think you're being potentially fitted up by a slightly corrupt, or incompetent, foreign police force? The latter point having been pretty well proved.

People are suggesting that it's suspicious that she didn't answer questions which could have helped find her daughter; that's not the case though. The questions were an investigation of her as a suspect and not simply ones trying to find the kid.

but isn't it standard practice to question parties close to the case as a potential suspect (eg wife dies, hubby is questioned)?

They did that the day or the day after she went missing. That was as witnesses though. This was four months later and as suspects. So - your kid goes missing in a foreign country, you know you had nothing to do with it, the police mess the initial investigation up and spend four months incompetently fking about under massive international media pressure until they make you an official suspect. Factor in any potential errors in translation and I'm pretty damn sure that I'd be keeping my mouth shut too, quite frankly.

[AJL308]

TheSnitch said:

AJL308 said:

Like you say, more than three weeks after the events in question. How on earth can that be considered to be 'evidence' if they didn't even have the car at the time she disappeared? Is it seriously the suggestion that they moved her body in the hire car three weeks after she died (after hiding it during that time) and managed to get away with it under one of the heaviest levels of press and police scrutiny this century up to that point? Utter fantasy. Sorry but it just is.

DNA evidence inside the car??? DNA evidence of what, precisely, their daughter? Hardly surprising.

None of what you have said is 'evidence' of anything because it doesn't draw you to the conclusion that the parents had anything to do with her disappearance. Not even remotely.

I think they all got a bit excited at first, probably because of some miscommunication between the UK and Portuguese forces, but I don't think anyone seriously continues to believe they were shifting a body about weeks later. Possible however that items which had been in proximity of the child after her death had picked up the odour of early decomposition and transferred it into the car

So British dogs picked up this scent in an entirely foreign environment, yet dogs native to the surroundings didn't. This, don't forget, is a very hot country. Did they do a control search of other cars? Perhaps the boots of most Portuguese cars smell of death to a British police dog?

The whole theory suggests that they killed her, or knew she was dead, and concealed the body. I'm sorry but I just do not believe that for one second. Who has the time and composure to hide their kid's body under those circumstances (the space of a few hours) and continue with a meal with friends without raising any suspicion? The whole suggestion is utterly fantastical, it really is.