I don't want to believe they're involved but the changes in their story etc make them look shifty. I think the massive over reaction to this 'new' information is ludicrous. The Irish fella gave his statement many years ago, said the 'kidnapper' looked about 40 and he thought it was Gerry McCann. His daughter said he could've been 20. Needless to say they'd been out on the piss. So the police are now claiming this changes everything ...... they were looking for a man, with a very vague description, and are now looking for a man with an even more vague description Yes lads, the thirty of you working full time on the case, including 6 in Faro, are doing a great job
Yes mate if you were being interviewed as a victim of crime where the police are objective and open minded and any information can lead to a new name or widening the search parameters. But she was being interviewed as a suspect. When the police have one thing and only one thing in mind and that's to incriminate her at all costs. Any information she'd have given that could lead to an explanation that would lead the investigation away from her would have been dismissed and the Police would have continued with their agenda to incriminate her. You say you'd tell them all I knew straight away, as a suspect? 30 minutes with your solicitor would change that guaranteed otherwise you might as well be asking them to charge you and subsequently all resources would be moved away from finding the truth and channelled into building a case against you. Which is the last thing you'd want. Not saying they're innocent or guilty, just saying that in reference to this interview, it doesn't matter if they're innocent or guilty, a solicitor will have advised a no comment interview which was in the suspects best interest regardless. It's just how it works.
Then you'd probably be charged, held without bail and all resources will have been plowed into incriminating you and you'd be further from finding your daughter than ever which no chance of the investigation getting back on the right track anytime soon. It's called legal advice for a reason, they know the law and how to play the game best to get the best out of it. And most of all- They aren't emotionally involved which would be worth it's weight in gold for you if you follow their advice.
It's a no comment interview mate. I'll bet my life she was under caution. It reads like she's under caution.
I'd think you'd always be under caution when giving a police statement. I do agree that the solicitor would be more concerned with his client's predicament than helping the search. The police were probably staggered that such tiny children could be left alone night after night so possibly prejudiced.
You don't get interviewed or cautioned as a victim of crime. You give a statement. Not defending them. I think they're dodgy as ****. But that interview is leading a lot of people down a blind alley as the interview proves absolutely **** all and wouldn't even be admissible in court.
You're probably right Bri but rational thought escapes when talking about a 3 year old daughter. I simply couldn't "not answer" the questions and would find no reason not to when I haven't done anything wrong. If my daughter had been taken I couldn't sit there and say nothing about it. I'd have to tell them everything - if it meant I was locked up then so be it but my daughters life would mean much more to me than my own in that situation
I would categorically refuse to rule out any involvement from the parents, they look shifty as ****. If I had it my way I'd say to hell with their human rights and have Her Majesty's finest interrogate the pair of them, like others have said, they haven't shown enough to convince me that they're actually innocent, they just look way too rehearsed and void of emotion. I can't justify her jeopardising the case by not answering questions but at the same time I wouldn't answer any questions if they were being conducted by foreign officers or via interpreters. That kind of desperate decision to answer any old questions can end up with an innocent person doing serious time due to miscommunication. I'm not certain what Portugal is like but it's often the case that many overseas authorities like to have a conviction and move on asap to avoid the negative publicity, especially in tourist areas. I fear it may be too late to get a convincing conviction on anybody for this case now though.
Very true mate. Draws questions to her frame of mind but unfortunately it proves nowt and is inadmissible (not sure on the inadmissible bit, she answered one question in a no comment interview that might change things)
Yeah I agree mate - no argument with Bri but I would not be able to "not say anything" - probably to my detriment!! Also - I would simply not leave my kids unattended anywhere - christ we went to Majorca this year and our kids went EVERYWHERE with us - regardless of how late it was or where we were going. it restricted how much we could do but I knew where they were - even when I was on the balcony of our room and they were asleep in bed the front door was securly locked from the inside and I checked on them every ferw minutes!
And there is the issue with most people Marcus. Most people watch their kids like you have with yours. But this family simply didn't...then then didn't answer questions put to them and I understand she washed her daughters favourite doll....why the hell would anyone do that???..as I say, the whole thing isn't right,
If they hadn't left their Bairns unattended this debate would not be going on but why has nobody mentioned the fact that the other couples at the bar had also done the same!.Were they cross examined in the same way and if so what did they say.Would have thought they were the main Witnesses to what went on regarding the nightly pissups they had while their children were left alone in a strange bed in a strange country.In my mind there is no excuse for what happened to the little girl and my heart goes out to anyone who loses a child but how stupid was their behavior and why are the other couples never mentioned.
You know, the sedation theory makes so much sense. And what mother would wash away the scent of her missing child? Dodgy ****s who's already proved they're not fit to be parents. Those who are wondering how blood could come into play in the sedation theory. A lot sedatives have blood thinning properties like aspirin does. An overdose could easily lead to nose, ear and even eye bleeds.
Loads have people have mentioned them, I was only just talking about Tanner and Oldfield. Both of them have made very strange statements to the police and media and changed their stories.
That may be the case for some but I simply believe the Portuguese police either had good reason to pursue the McCanns or were horribly prejudiced from day one. As you say the interview was directed to a suspect rather than witness.
The main topic of conversation at work today between colleagues and clients, its got everybody talking about it again, not one person so far does not suspect the mccanns, not one
Warren Thornton ▶ The Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY 100 REASONS WHY THE PARENTS BELONG IN JAIL 1. Did they use the babysitting service provided? NO 2. Did they use any listening devices? NO 3. Did they leave three children under 4 alone while going out drinking? YES 4. Did they do this every night? YES 5. Did they,under British law,endanger Maddie? YES 6. In the UK is significant harm a form of child abuse? YES 7. Is significant harm used by the UK courts in child abuse cases? YES 8. Does leaving the children as they did qualify under these rules ? YES 9. Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie? YES 10. Are the frequent checks by the Tapas group challenged by other witnesses? YES 11. Was the bedroom withing sight of where they sat? NO 12, Were they within earshot? NO 13. Did anyone other than Tanner see any abductor? NO 14. Has anyone come up with a credible abductor? NO 15. Is there any evidence of an abduction? NO 16. Were the shutters in the room tampered with? NO 17. Did Kate say the shutters were tampered with? YES 18. Did Kate change her story to saying the door was unlocked? YES 19. Was the door unlocked on any other night? NO 20. Is there any physical evidence at all of a break in? NO 21. Is there any physical evidence of another party being in the room? NO 23. Were the McCann's told not to inform the media? YES 24. Were they told it might harm the chances of finding Maddie alive? YES 25. Were the media informed by a McCann family member? YES 26. Were specially trained British dogs brought in to search the apartment ? YES 27. Did they find anything? YES 28. Have these dogs been successful in over 200 cases? YES 29. Do sniffer dogs lie? NO 30. Do the specially trained dogs get confused by other smells? NO 31. Did they find cadaver(dead body) scent in the apartment? YES 32. Did they find blood? YES 33. Did they find cadaver scent behind the sofa? YES 34. On the child's toy? YES 35. In a cupboard in the room? YES 36. Did they find cadaver scent on Kate's clothes? YES 37. Did Kate explain this by saying she had examined dead bodies before holiday? YES 38. Is there any record of her doing so? NO 39. Has anyone come forward to say they saw her doing so? NO 40. Was the hire car rented after Maddie disappeared ? YES 41. Were tests done on DNA found in the car? YES 42. Did the dogs alert to the hire car? YES 43. Is a billion to one odds that it may be someone else's DNA? YES 44. Were the doors and boot left open to get rid of the smell in the car? YES 45. Did the parents explain it away as rotting meat? YES 46. Smelling due to taking rubbish to the tip in the hire car? YES 47. Smelling due to dirty nappies in the hire car? YES 48. Smell due to sea bass in the hire car? YES 49. Did the parents say the dogs were wrong? YES 50. Do you need tons of excuses if the dogs are just plain wrong? NO 51. Have the dogs ever been wrong? NO 52. Did Kate & Gerry flee Portugal? YES 53. Did they hire extradition lawyers? YES 54. Did the McCann's hire libel lawyers to gag anyone with a different view? YES 55. Did the government lend spin doctor Clarence Mitchell to the parents? YES 56. Dio spin doctors twist the truth for a favourable outcome? YES 57. Are they paid to do this? YES 58. Did the McCann's set up a fund in order to search for Maddie? YES 59. Did they use the money donated for anything other than searching? YES 60. Do the parents have a media monitoring unit? YES 61. Are there internet trolls helping the parents to quash getting at the truth? YES 62. Have the Portuguese police been portrayed as incompetent? YES 63. Did they look at all aspects of the case? YES 64. Did they conclude any abduction took place? NO 65. Did they conclude that Maddie was dead and the parents responsible? YES 66. Are there two British investigations into Maddie being missing? YES 67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? NO 68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? YES 69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? NO 70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? NO 71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? NO 72. Have the parents made millions from Maddie being missing? YES 73. Did Kate write a book mentioning torn genitalia that the twins might read? YES 74. Did Gerry have his wallet stolen at Waterloo station as he claimed? NO 75. Does the CCTV footage from that day bear out his claims? NO 76. Did the Portuguese police ask British government for medical records? YES 77. Were they handed over? NO 78. Did they ask for bank statements? YES 79. Were they handed over ? NO 80. Did they ask for mobile phone records? YES 81. Were they handed over? NO 82. Have the media printed the McCann version of events? YES 83. Are the media intimidated by threats of libel? YES 84. Have the parents admitted they are responsible for Maddie's disappearance? NO 85. Have the parents faced any criminal charges to date? NO 86. No charges for manslaughter? NO 87. For neglect? NO 88. Did the McCann's say they would take a polygraph(lie detector test) ? YES 89. Did the McCann "people" contact Don Cargill head of polygraph studies?YES 90. Did the McCann's tell the world they would take one to prove innocence? YES 91. Have they taken one in the 2'000+ days since saying they would? NO 92. Did the parents impose a list of conditions for taking one? YES 93. Did Don Cargill say the list was "impossible to satisfy"? YES 94. Did Don Cargill state "They had no intention of taking one"? YES 95. Did Clarence Mitchell say they were innocent and did not need to do one? YES 96. IS Amaral on trial because he wrote a book stating the facts of the case? YES 97. Is it a proper account of the police investigation ? YES 98. Have the McCann's fought desperately to have this book banned? YES 99. Is it banned? NO 100. Is maddie missing because of the actions of the parents? YES
I'm totally open minded regarding their eventual guilt or innocence. However, as far as I'm concerned, they are innocent of the crime in question until proved otherwise...
