Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

The McCanns...


Chris
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Barry Wom said:

what was the evidence against robert murat and how did that relate to the mccanns as i understand they were all under aguido's at the same time? 

A young journalist working for the Daily Mirror thought that Murat was being a little bit too helpful to the Portuguese police and acting suspiciously.  They shopped him in and he was questioned, but ultimately they had nothing on him.  He's a strange character, though.  He flew out to the resort from the UK before the story had broke internationally and there are indications that he knew the McCanns prior to the whole Madeleine thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, liverpoolsno9 said:

They were made suspects because the Police were desperate to get to get someone without having the evidence to do so. Do you really think, that with this 'mountain of evidence' you speak off that they'd still be free? Are they are a member of some secret society whereby they can get away with murder even with a 'mountain of evidence' against them? Do you believe Elvis is still alive? Man landed on the moon? 9/11? Jfk? It seems  you love a good conspiracy theory and read too much what all the amateur detective know it alls have to say on the internet. 

This is patronising and doesn't merit a response, sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TK421 said:
  • DNA samples in the apartment, in the car and on items connected with Kate (e.g. cuddle cat);
  • Cadaver odour;
  • Changes of the McCanns story (e.g. from forced entry through the window shutters to walking through unlocked doors);
  • Behaviour of the McCanns (Kate refusing to answer questions under police caution, no physical search for Madeleine by the McCanns, refusing to take part in a police reconstruction, Kate washing cuddle cat before the dogs arrived);
  •  Inconsistent statements of the McCanns' friends;
  • Staged crime scene; 
  • Lack of evidence Madeleine was alive from Sunday 29th April onwards (no photos, no corroborated sightings)

You see I am not a solicitor, but I am a member of the public so could sit on a jury. I have a gut feel that the mccann's at least know more than they've said, but I am not sure that list above amounts to much, for me it raises as many questions as answers. 

 

In terms of stories changing or being inconsistent. Would that not be very consistent with people under pressure and very likely to be boozed up? 

How does Kate McCann not answering questions amount to evidence against her? Didn't this happen months after, so if she is innocent, as this point you would rightly be thinking you were being fitted up? 

Stage crime scene - is this what was in the netflix thing, in so much as everyone went through the apartment? Is that not likely to happen? Your kid is missing and your fist instinct wouldn't be they were abducted, just they're hiding somewhere? 

I have seen you mention before about the lack of evidence she was alive from April 29th. Is there evidence the other kids were alive? Weren't all the kids not getting put in the creche every day? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

A young journalist working for the Daily Mirror thought that Murat was being a little bit too helpful to the Portuguese police and acting suspiciously.  They shopped him in and he was questioned, but ultimately they had nothing on him.  He's a strange character, though.  He flew out to the resort from the UK before the story had broke internationally and there are indications that he knew the McCanns prior to the whole Madeleine thing. 

So he was an aguido without there being any evidence? 

 

As for them knowing him, is this an issue in itself? I have been on holiday in this resort and I think it is perfectly possible to know someone who lives locally, escpecially if you have been more than once, which I think they had. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

You see I am not a solicitor, but I am a member of the public so could sit on a jury. I have a gut feel that the mccann's at least know more than they've said, but I am not sure that list above amounts to much, for me it raises as many questions as answers. 

 

In terms of stories changing or being inconsistent. Would that not be very consistent with people under pressure and very likely to be boozed up? 

How does Kate McCann not answering questions amount to evidence against her? Didn't this happen months after, so if she is innocent, as this point you would rightly be thinking you were being fitted up? 

Stage crime scene - is this what was in the netflix thing, in so much as everyone went through the apartment? Is that not likely to happen? Your kid is missing and your fist instinct wouldn't be they were abducted, just they're hiding somewhere? 

I have seen you mention before about the lack of evidence she was alive from April 29th. Is there evidence the other kids were alive? Weren't all the kids not getting put in the creche every day? 

I don't work in criminal justice, I just have a lay interest in this.  So I don't know why they were made arguidos, you'd have to ask the Portuguese police, but the fact is that they had enough evidence to question Kate under detainment.  Whether they were boozed up or not I would expect their memory of events that night to be pretty clear.  If your daughter goes missing, their will be a hormonal rush/adrenaline kicking in to enhance your awareness generally so that you remember every small detail.  Think of a dramatic event in your own life, you can probably remember details about it that you would not be able to recall for any other normal day, do you get me?

 

Kate not answering questions doesn't prove anything in itself.  But taken together with all of the other evidence it doesn't look good.  I don't know how it works in Portugal, but in UK law a jury is entitled to draw inferences when somebody exercises their right to silence.  

 

The staged crime scene refers more to the arrangement of furniture in the room, the curtains had been neatly placed back (Kate had said they had blown open) and the lack of Maddie's DNA at the scene which strongly indicates that the apartment had been sterilised in advance.

 

You say that the first instinct wouldn't be that she had been abducted, I agree with that.  However Kate's first words were "they've taken her", she immediately jumped to the conclusion of an abduction without countenancing other possibilities, e.g. Maddie simply wandering off.  This alone made the Portuguese police suspicious.  

 

If you go a few pages back I've already talked about lack of evidence she was alive after 29th April.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

So he was an aguido without there being any evidence? 

 

As for them knowing him, is this an issue in itself? I have been on holiday in this resort and I think it is perfectly possible to know someone who lives locally, escpecially if you have been more than once, which I think they had. 

I don't really know much about Murat as it's not part of the case which interests me much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

You see I am not a solicitor, but I am a member of the public so could sit on a jury. I have a gut feel that the mccann's at least know more than they've said, but I am not sure that list above amounts to much, for me it raises as many questions as answers. 

 

In terms of stories changing or being inconsistent. Would that not be very consistent with people under pressure and very likely to be boozed up? 

How does Kate McCann not answering questions amount to evidence against her? Didn't this happen months after, so if she is innocent, as this point you would rightly be thinking you were being fitted up? 

Stage crime scene - is this what was in the netflix thing, in so much as everyone went through the apartment? Is that not likely to happen? Your kid is missing and your fist instinct wouldn't be they were abducted, just they're hiding somewhere? 

I have seen you mention before about the lack of evidence she was alive from April 29th. Is there evidence the other kids were alive? Weren't all the kids not getting put in the creche every day? 

I feel very similar to you Barry,that doesn't constitute a 'mountain' of evidence for me either. I don't think the parents should be ruled out but there is no real evidence there other than simply keeping them as suspects. The case against them isn't strong at all but the child dying in their care is at least a possibility,as is the kidnap angle.

Purely from a gut feeling I think the kidnapping is unlikely as cops and authorities usually have info on people who do this type of thing and they are rarely random.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I don't work in criminal justice, I just have a lay interest in this.  So I don't know why they were made arguidos, you'd have to ask the Portuguese police, but the fact is that they had enough evidence to question Kate under detainment.  Whether they were boozed up or not I would expect their memory of events that night to be pretty clear.  If your daughter goes missing, their will be a hormonal rush/adrenaline kicking in to enhance your awareness generally so that you remember every small detail.  Think of a dramatic event in your own life, you can probably remember details about it that you would not be able to recall for any other normal day, do you get me?

  

Kate not answering questions doesn't prove anything in itself.  But taken together with all of the other evidence it doesn't look good.  I don't know how it works in Portugal, but in UK law a jury is entitled to draw inferences when somebody exercises their right to silence.  

  

The staged crime scene refers more to the arrangement of furniture in the room, the curtains had been neatly placed back (Kate had said they had blown open) and the lack of Maddie's DNA at the scene which strongly indicates that the apartment had been sterilised in advance.

 

You say that the first instinct wouldn't be that she had been abducted, I agree with that.  However Kate's first words were "they've taken her", she immediately jumped to the conclusion of an abduction without countenancing other possibilities, e.g. Maddie simply wandering off.  This alone made the Portuguese police suspicious.  

  

If you go a few pages back I've already talked about lack of evidence she was alive after 29th April.  

I get the idea that emotional events can focus your mind, but equally, I think your mind can play tricks with you and you almost remember what you want to remember. 

 

I get it is not a great look she refused to answer questions. but equally at this point she wasn't defneding herself to a jury, she was months after the event defending herself - presumably with questions that should have been asked months before. 

 

So I know she comes running out saying they've taken her ... presumably because the window was supposedly open. But then when everyone comes back, would they not have calmer minds? 

 

I read a lot (maybe all) of your comments she wasn't seen from April 29th - but I don't remember much context around the other kids and the creche on any day but the day she was reported missing.  

5 minutes ago, TK421 said:

 I don't really know much about Murat as it's not part of the case which interests me much.  

I guess the point here is there being there seemed little evidence of murat being connected to the case. he was just acting on the face of it like a helpful local resident, who would rightly want to do all he can to help and iirc was able to speak portuguese - but some fella from the mirror didn't like it (because it reminded him of another case). yet they made him an aguido. so being given that status neither implies there was a body of evidence against the mccanns or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TK421 said:

This is patronising and doesn't merit a response, sorry. 

 

‘Ok, take out the patronising bits. I’m really interested to see your reply.

 

Do you really think, that with this 'mountain of evidence' you speak off that they'd still be free? The British police have seen all this evidence and are confident that they aren’t suspects. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barry Wom said:

I get the idea that emotional events can focus your mind, but equally, I think your mind can play tricks with you and you almost remember what you want to remember. 

 

I get it is not a great look she refused to answer questions. but equally at this point she wasn't defneding herself to a jury, she was months after the event defending herself - presumably with questions that should have been asked months before. 

 

So I know she comes running out saying they've taken her ... presumably because the window was supposedly open. But then when everyone comes back, would they not have calmer minds? 

 

I read a lot (maybe all) of your comments she wasn't seen from April 29th - but I don't remember much context around the other kids and the creche on any day but the day she was reported missing.  

I guess the point here is there being there seemed little evidence of murat being connected to the case. he was just acting on the face of it like a helpful local resident, who would rightly want to do all he can to help and iirc was able to speak portuguese - but some fella from the mirror didn't like it (because it reminded him of another case). yet they made him an aguido. so being given that status neither implies there was a body of evidence against the mccanns or not. 

As I say, none of these factors on their own prove anything and nothing has been tested in a court of law.  I just look at the whole picture and the whole picture tells me she's dead and the parents are full of shit.  The two things which convince me are the McCanns changing their story and both dogs giving multiple positive alerts.  The dogs are saying she's dead, and I believe them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, liverpoolsno9 said:

 

‘Ok, take out the patronising bits. I’m really interested to see your reply.

 

Do you really think, that with this 'mountain of evidence' you speak off that they'd still be free? The British police have seen all this evidence and are confident that they aren’t suspects. Why is that?

I've been over all of this before on previous pages of the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TK421 said:

As I say, none of these factors on their own prove anything and nothing has been tested in a court of law.  I just look at the whole picture and the whole picture tells me she's dead and the parents are full of shit.  The two things which convince me are the McCanns changing their story and both dogs giving multiple positive alerts.  The dogs are saying she's dead, and I believe them.

 No they fucking aren’t - the copper in the programme says they aren’t.  Is that copper a good piggy or a bad piggy? Cunt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TK421 said:

As I say, none of these factors on their own prove anything and nothing has been tested in a court of law.  I just look at the whole picture and the whole picture tells me she's dead and the parents are full of shit.  The two things which convince me are the McCanns changing their story and both dogs giving multiple positive alerts.  The dogs are saying she's dead, and I believe them.

So the dogs gave multiple positive alerts? If so,this piques my interest given how dogs are so much more sensitive than humans. But was the girl's DNA in places it shouldn't have been?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

So the dogs gave multiple positive alerts? If so,this piques my interest given how dogs are so much more sensitive than humans. But was the girl's DNA in places it shouldn't have been?

Watch the videos with the dogs on youtube and their handler Martin Grime, Vlad.  The dogs were balls deep in alerts.  Woof!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I work in a legal firm and every solicitor in there is a cunt. Patronising pricks who think they deserve some sort adulation everytime they walk in the office. 

Too fucking right. Now show some deference to me, you little oik.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

I feel very similar to you Barry,that doesn't constitute a 'mountain' of evidence for me either. I don't think the parents should be ruled out but there is no real evidence there other than simply keeping them as suspects. The case against them isn't strong at all but the child dying in their care is at least a possibility,as is the kidnap angle.

Purely from a gut feeling I think the kidnapping is unlikely as cops and authorities usually have info on people who do this type of thing and they are rarely random.

For me it is purely gut feeling. Just something as simple as them going to sleep at 4am or whatever it was when their kid had only just gone missing screems to me something isn't right. You wouldn't have stopped looking to have a kip, 4am or not that quickly. Something doesn't add up, I just don't think there's evidence to prove they did it. 

2 hours ago, TK421 said:

As I say, none of these factors on their own prove anything and nothing has been tested in a court of law.  I just look at the whole picture and the whole picture tells me she's dead and the parents are full of shit.  The two things which convince me are the McCanns changing their story and both dogs giving multiple positive alerts.  The dogs are saying she's dead, and I believe them.

So here's a question about the dogs and I might be misunderstanding their skill. But they weren't on the hunt for Maddie as I understood it, they were hunting for either blood or the smell of death. but if they found something it could have been the smell of a dead rat or something, it didn't mean they'd been trained to find a dead maddie? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

For me it is purely gut feeling. Just something as simple as them going to sleep at 4am or whatever it was when their kid had only just gone missing screems to me something isn't right. You wouldn't have stopped looking to have a kip, 4am or not that quickly. Something doesn't add up, I just don't think there's evidence to prove they did it. 

So here's a question about the dogs and I might be misunderstanding their skill. But they weren't on the hunt for Maddie as I understood it, they were hunting for either blood or the smell of death. but if they found something it could have been the smell of a dead rat or something, it didn't mean they'd been trained to find a dead maddie? 

The dog handler says something along the lines of ‘they indicate, but they can’t tell you what for or who for’.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

So here's a question about the dogs and I might be misunderstanding their skill. But they weren't on the hunt for Maddie as I understood it, they were hunting for either blood or the smell of death. but if they found something it could have been the smell of a dead rat or something, it didn't mean they'd been trained to find a dead maddie? 

I don't think it works like that.  They are specifically trained to smell for human cadaver and human blood so that mistakes like that don't happen.  They don't give false alerts; if they bark, it's because they've detected human blood (Keela) or the past presence of a human corpse (Eddie).  That being the case, it is a virtual certainty that there was a dead body in the apartment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I don't think it works like that.  They are specifically trained to smell for human cadaver and human blood so that mistakes like that don't happen.  They don't give false alerts; if they bark, it's because they've detected human blood (Keela) or the past presence of a human corpse (Eddie).  That being the case, it is a virtual certainty that there was a dead body in the apartment.

OK, that wasn't my understanding, as i was pretty sure netflix talked about them finding a dead animal scent that had been removed years before. but i might have that wrong, i did binge watch it over a weekend i wasn't too well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

OK, that wasn't my understanding, as i was pretty sure netflix talked about them finding a dead animal scent that had been removed years before. but i might have that wrong, i did binge watch it over a weekend i wasn't too well. 

I think the possibility of both dogs giving a false alert is highly remote.  The dogs go in separately, so the blood one will go in first and then the cadaver dog or vice versa.   Both dogs gave alerts in the same location (behind the sofa) independently of each other.  The possibility of that happening by mistake is very low. 

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/how-sniffer-dogs-signalled-scent-14141404

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

The dog handler says something along the lines of ‘they indicate, but they can’t tell you what for or who for’.  

 

"What's that, Skip?  Little Johnny's fallen down the well?  Again??!?  What a stupid cunt.  Let him rot this time"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...