At some point the search will surely need to be called off? When is enough enough? please log in to view this image
Should have been done years ago sadly. There are thousands of missing children and they don't get this sort of financial backing.
This x 1000. I understand that if it was your own, you'd never stop, but you have to - at some point - accept that the authorities are not going to be able to do anything. That point passed about 5 years ago.
Only one victim here and that was Maddie. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22389...iracy-theories-portugal-family-age-sightings/ "Parents Gerry and Kate left their three children – including toddler twins Sean and Amelie – sleeping in their apartment while they dined at a tapas bar – 120 metres away. When Kate returned to check on the kids at around 10pm that evening, she discovered that Maddie was not in her bed and was missing."
Agree. Applying the 'but for' train of thought... but for her parents neglect would she be alive? Of course she would.
It must be one of the worst things to live with but that's why decent parents don't do what the McCanns did and place their child at risk. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...adeleine-disappearance-portugal-a7710111.html Why would you not answer the questions?
It is rather odd how she coldn't bring herself to answer those questions but she was capable of actively participating in the fundraising efforts to help find Maddie. You would have thought the average person would answer all questions as they are clearly relevant to the invesigation and therefore answering them may aid the search.
I saw plenty still doing it on a recent holiday to Cyprus. Shocked to see both couples and single parents appearing in the bar at 10pm with no kid (s) in tow. They were doing it by the dozen - I was shocked. Obviously a lot more common place than we'd all admit it imagine.
I have no idea what the McCanns did or didn't do, but the speed and number of high profile bods getting involved means 2+2 rapidly gets to high numbers. Things like Freud living close by, and his son being Murdoch's (now ex) son in law makes the media coverage interesting. Something that seems to get little coverage when they mention the cadaver dog is firstly, the McCanns almost total dismissal of it. I'd want to know more if it was my kid that was missing. Plus, seemingly those dogs are pretty reliable, so if it wasn't the bairns body, whose was it?
I heard you were much more sensible and always tie yours to the bed with handcuffs and then locked all the doors and windows.
The only way any more money should be assigned to this case should be if the police actually have active serious leads that they want to pursue. Otherwise assign to the inactive case files like all the others and follow-up if anything new comes up.
My memory is sketchy but was that not what got them made suspects? But it was from evidence in the car which could be explained away? I really don't think they are suspects. Could the bairn just have walked out of the apartment and gone to the beach and got washed away or something? I doubt we'll ever have the answers. There really can't be any new avenues of investigation. Time for the McCanns and the media to let go.
Lie Detectors are notoriously inaccurate which is why they are not allowed to be used as evidence in UK courts.
What I find really interesting about conspiracy theories (the only thing I find interesting about them) is that they are all fantasies that people make up to make themselves feel safer. "Princess Diana was murdered by conspiracy because otherwise I'd have to admit to myself that *special* people like her/myself can die in stupid car accidents" "9/11 was an evil government conspiracy because that's actually *less* scary than the idea that a few nutcases can murder 3000 people with a stanley knife and the government is well meaning but powerless to stop them" "Maddy's parents were complicit in her abduction because otherwise it feels much more likely that the same thing could happen to my child, if I don't watch them all the time" Such theories (and their proponents) suddenly made a lot more sense when this was pointed out to me.
I think the worst thing about conspiracy theories is that every now and again one of them is either true or partially true. Either that or they accidentally uncover or hint at something else which has accidentally been exposed. This gives the tin foil brigade just enough paranoia food to then keep seeing conspiracies in everything.
I didn't have any particular examples of conspiracies that were definitely true. It's just a belief I have that due to the many examples out there then some are bound to hit close to home. A bit like that Mel Gibson movie if you like. Some of these conspiracy theories do throw up some pretty crazy **** though. Things like the owner of the WTC re-insuring it for a much greater value the day before the attacks happened. Personally I don't see that as evidence of it being a 'false flag' or whatever you call them. I think its probably more a case of showing that when they do get wind of things that might happen, then some people are much more likely to protect against financial loss than they are to protect against the minor inconvenience of human loss.
I'm not sure where you got the "reinsuring the day before" bit from. Sounds like the guy had pretty standard insurance. The only unusual bit was that he sued for more money as a result of the nature of the attack. And that's hardly *that* unexpected. http://www.snopes.com/wtc-terrorism-insurance/
