Saturday, 16 August 2008

“I have a terrible nagging doubt the McCanns might be involved”

Not new, but always worth a second reading...

MailOnline

By DAVID JONES
Last updated at 00:36 08 Setembro 2007
(...)

My own gnawing doubts about the conventional theories began on my first visit to Portugal. I am a reporter, not a detective, but some things just didn't seem right.
First, there was the resort itself. Expecting to find a bustling town where it would be easy for a childsnatcher to mingle with the crowd while watching his target, and make off without arousing suspicion, I found instead an almost deserted, out-of-season place. A risky setting for a kidnap, however well-planned.
Then there was the McCanns' apartment. Although it stood at least 75 yards from the tapas bar where the family's party dined, and was completely obscured by a high wall topped with bougainvillea, its location would have presented considerable problems to a would-be abductor.”
(...)

The sliding window at the rear faces an alley used as a main thoroughfare for those staying in the apartment blocks, while the front door and windows open on to a frequently used car-park, beyond which runs a well-lit main road.
How on Earth, I have often wondered, did someone walk in, gather Madeleine up in his arms and make off with her without being seen, or waking her twin brother and sister sleeping either side of her? And surely the little girl must have stirred. The neighbouring apartments were occupied. Why was nothing heard or seen?”
(...)

And, whether we like it or not, the possible involvement of Kate and Gerry McCann should have been rigorously investigated at the very beginning of the inquiry - as it would have been in Britain, where routine procedure dictates that those closest to the victim are scrutinised and eliminated first.”
(...)

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

D.J. in that time was very lucid.Almost a year a go.But the words are here.It is nice and good."Taste" well.

One year after,where is he? What he think now? B.K. probably visited him or make a call to him.Who knows?

***S****há***no céu.

Thank You,P.R.

Anonymous said...

By law they have been found to have played no part in the disappearance of Madeleine.

Why are bringing up last years news?

Why are you still trying to drag them down?

They have lost their daughter for gods sake.

Pathetic.

Eloisa said...

Anonymous 16 August 2008 15:49
said...

1. By law they have been found to have played no part in the disappearance of Madeleine.

By law. Which law anonymous?? The process has been shelved waiting to get more evidence. Evidence in the process was not considered. Why was Gordon Brown talking to Socrates about this case? Why is it so special for the British government? If it is not special, why have they interfered?

2. Why are bringing up last years news?
A crime is always new news, anonymous. Do you want the truth to be found, or maybe not?

3. Why are you still trying to drag them down?

Drag down who, anonymous? The McCanns have played no part in the disappearance. Why do you think commenting the news, new or old would harm them? Do you fear the PM in Portugal might change their mind? What if they do? Are you seeking justice for the child?

3. They have lost their daughter for gods sake.

We all know they have left 3 kids alone, at night in a foreign country, to go drinking. Systematically. It's easy to lose kids when you're so systematically careless. Don't you agree, anonymous?

4. Pathetic.

I agree with you.
One of the kids was bleeding in the apartment, there was blood in the walls and on the floor. The dogs detected cadaver scent in the apartment, in the car, on the carkeys.

The remaining 2 kids never woke up, despite the noise and the commotion. What do they feed them? Real pathetic, in your views and in my views.

You don't want to know more. Are you afraid? You should be.

Regards,
Eloisa

guerra said...

Anonymous, I beg to differ with your opinion "By law they have been found to have played no part in the disappearance of Madeleine." The following statement is more indicative of what took place: by political interference the possibility of investigating the main suspects in the case, the couple, was made impossible. Here are some of the facts which led me to that conclusion.
Police not allowed to check the background of the couple and their suspects.
Police not allowed to access phone records.
Police not allowed to access financial records.
British government involvement from the outset. Gordon Brown personally in contact with couple. Gordon Brown discusses the case with his Portuguese counterpart. Government employee representing couple.
British media controlled. Politicians associate the couple, primary suspects in a criminal investigation, with an international child welfare initiative. British judge proclaims the innocence of the couple who were still suspects.
Portuguese Public Ministry concludes that the child was killed and at the same time that an abduction was impossible, two contradictory conclusions.
Portuguese Public Ministry concludes that the couple is innocent because they displayed no abnormal behaviour, clearly this was not the case and you can't clear or convict someone based solely on their behaviour.

In following the case I have observed that the same people who say innocent before proven guilty also intimate the idea that certain people shouldn't be investigated. "Innocent before proven guilty" is a concept for the courts, specifically for the judge and jury to follow. The prosecutor in a trial certainly doesn't believe in innocent before proven guilty. O. J. Simpson was found innocent of killing his wife and a man, yet you would be hard pressed to find someone in the public who believes he is innocent.
PS. You find all this pathetic but that doesn't dissuade you from accessing this site.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your comments. I'll answer one thing... the p.s.

... I only found this site today and i won't be coming back.

Losers.

Anonymous said...

anonymous,

By Law the McCanns are answerable on many counts. The abandonment of three children each and every night in Luz. Cadaver odours in all locations on police files, blood - car keys, apartment and vehicle matching 15 of Madeleine's DNA components - a percentage confirming they belong to no other.

£1.3 m was, therefore, obtained under false pretences. The British authorities withheld forensic results pertaining to corpse hair/ignored PJ's request for their return. The British authorities failed to pass Madeleine's medical records to the Police and her mother refused to answer 48 questions in interview.

PJ's request for cuddle cat for forensic examination was ignored and so the list goes on.

The British & Portuguese police had collated evidence by the end of September proving the reason for Madeleine's disappearance. Any other parents in either country would have been arrested, charged and made answerable to Court.

The difference in this case is that Labour Government ministers intervened on day one and continue to ensure the course of justice is perverted.

Last year's news was correct, according to facts in Mr Amaral's book and police files - Madeleine died in her parents apartment on or around 3 May.

Big names, big bucks and corruption will never alter the facts. In fact, the innocent have no need for such recourse. Innocent people would have cleared their names via usual legal procedures last September.

The McCanns only means of defence is media spin and lies ... hence Mitchell's secondment from the Home Office.

Anonymous said...

I once read an explanation that made a lot of sense and it went something like this: 2policemen are doing their round and ear glass breaking. They turn the corner and see 2men leaning inside a car with broken windows with the car radio and a wallet in their hands. The policemen arrest the men and take them to the station. Presented to the judge they say they were just passing and they were only trying to secure the belongings since the window was broken and they would’ve gone to the police so the owner could get the belongings back later. Since no ore evidence could be presented, the judge let them go.
Did the police act as expected? No doubt, they did. Does the law have to be respected? Most definitely, it has. Do we have to believe this good-Samaritan-being-misunderstood-by-police-story? I don’t think so.
The principle of innocent till proven guilty sounds fine to me, that is why they are not in prison or suspects anymore; but the LAW has also stated that there were important issue that were not clarified by lack of information and/or cooperation from the suspects and authorities… that is probably why no sufficient evidence was found – also note that some evidence was not considered by the court.
So, although I don’t believe in hate or persecutory speech, I have to recognize that there are a lot of things to be cleared in this case - as Guerra and Eloisa have named (and so much more). Maybe they were not proven guilty but they weren’t able to convince everyone – I would say, almost no one, since the ones that still believe their story with no shadow of a doubt are the ones that seem to be hill informed by the insistent spokesman and British media (and the American friend) – curiously also referring and publishing facts from a year ago, mostly distorting them, lying about them, in addition to creating facts that never were.
People are free to believe whatever they will but have to be willing to be confronted with the facts as they are. If opinions are extreme and not sensible, from either side, there will probably be no debate possible. And to be fair the ones that created the confusion, the noise, the spinning and the insinuations was the team MC in all its forms. Also they’ve adopted an attitude as if they were above suspicion, not subjected to scrutiny and defiant (if not insolent) towards the law and the police. For me, this attitude is inadmissible and combined with the lack of cooperation – let’s put this way - from authorities is the first sign that something is not right. And not from a criminal investigation point of view but from a citizen’s point of view – there is no way I’m willing to accept that by being from a particular country or from a particular social class or by having powerful connections someone should not be investigated properly – and the MCs were not.
Nothing comes without a price. In this case maybe they avoided investigation to be properly conducted, but the price to pay will be this… the repetition of everything that does not make sense time and time again… So I believe that, in their own interest, they should have participated and be candid about it, but they weren’t and the shadow of suspicion will never go away… or maybe one day it will… Moreover ‘case Madeleine’ will be opened till 2022… so this isn’t just going to go away.

guerra said...

Good luck. I hope you find a site that's more to your liking. A site where all the winners are at. I guess it will be a site that brings up last year's news of all the sightings. Sightings that have been proved to be false by the authorities. A site that will not drag down the couple but exalt them. A site that will gloss over contradictions and remark on the culinary tastes of the Portuguese. Auf Wiedersehn.

Anonymous said...

Look, it's no good getting shirty with people who insist on accepting the police files at face value. They say that after over a year of exhaustive investigation, all arguidos are released because there is no evidence they are guilty of anything.
And I believe those files. They have come to the only sensible conclusion, and to come to another one and uphold it as the truth leads you into huge dark conspiracies which are simply nonsensical.
The PJ, minus Amaral, knew that if they went to court with two dogs and a man who changed his testimony 4 months afer a sighting, and who was in danger of being contradcited by others in his party, then they would be damned as fools.
And in the final analysis, that's all they had - not even a convincng timeline. Amaral's attempt at provding one has made him look foolish - the PJ are not going to go down that route!