Madeleine McCann

[Kellfire]

Correct this is more than likely why nothing was answered by her. Also she had a lawyer present I think so she will have been told to say nothing. Nothing sinister at all in this

Wow. That is beyond defence.

 

[ColchesterFC]

And if the police had stopped looking for your child, named you the prime suspect and started trying to pin the blame on you.... Still answering everything?

Yep and answering them even more quickly than before so that the police can eliminate me as a suspect and get their focus back onto whoever is actually responsible for the crime.

 

[In_The_Rough]

Wow. That is beyond defence.

Not really as FD said she had been named a suspect by the Portuguese buffoons who were leading the investigation so to stop them trying to pin the blame/stitch her up whatever you wish to call it she said nothing probably on her lawyers advice. Seems straightforward to me.

 

[Kellfire]

Not really as FD said she had been named a suspect by the Portuguese buffoons who were leading the investigation so to stop them trying to pin the blame/stitch her up whatever you wish to call it she said nothing probably on her lawyers advice. Seems straightforward to me.

If I was named a suspect it would never stop me trying to find my child. Anyone who would is absolute scum imo.

 

[In_The_Rough]

If I was named a suspect it would never stop me trying to find my child. Anyone who would is absolute scum imo.

Agree it would not me either which is what the McCanns have been doing for the last few years is it not, hence various appeals and going to the UK government and other campaigns. However I can totally see why she did not answer the Portuguese Polices questions as it seemed they had decided she was involved somehow and I have to say I trust foreign Police forces even less than ours and that is saying something. I have had dealings with the Spanish and Portuguese police before and they were the pits.

 

[mikee247]

Correct, once in a blue moon. NOT 6 nights in a row.

I'm not trying to condone their actions at all here but I do think they have suffered enough on this subject... but it was apparently a Mark Warner holiday who do encourage adults having dinner together in the evening and normally offer some sort of baby watching service...if you remember there were quite a few of them (couples) all around the table all doing the same thing and then checking their kids regularly. Its not for me but you can kind of see why it was easier or them to think it was ok.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I'm not trying to condone their actions at all here but I do think they have suffered enough on this subject... but it was apparently a Mark Warner holiday who do encourage adults having dinner together in the evening and normally offer some sort of baby watching service...if you remember there were quite a few of them (couples) all around the table all doing the same thing and then checking their kids regularly. Its not for me but you can kind of see why it was easier or them to think it was ok.

Checking on them every 30mins isn't that regular IMO. Imagine if the kids woke up 5mins after been checked on. That's 25mins for the kids to be scared wondering where their parents are.
& lets not forget the twins were babies,they didn't even have baby monitors.

 

[Liverbirdie]

It was also seen as OK to smack your child back then, do people still do that?

Yep, and rightly so within reason, IMHO.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Yep, and rightly so within reason, IMHO.

I agree,never did me any harm.

 

[Khamelion]

Nor me, my mam would've often smack my legs, if I was playing up, normally with the warning "If you don't stop crying, I'll give you something to cry for"

 

[bluewolf]

Yep, and rightly so within reason, IMHO.

Spot on again LB. Didn't hurt me any.........

 

[Fish]

It was also seen as OK to smack your child back then, do people still do that?

When I'm naughty I still deserve a good spank :smirk:

 

[bladeplayer]

Yep, and rightly so within reason, IMHO.

Gota agree with my scouse buddy & the others on this ,

 

[Pin-seeker]

Spot on again LB. Didn't hurt me any.........

Bet it did at the time

 

[bluewolf]

Bet it did at the time

I got the full German style discipline.. Stopped me making that mistake again.... Times have changed since the 70's though.

 

[Dodger]

http://www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm

 

[jimbob.someroo]

http://www.cwporter.com/mccann.htm

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but that site is written in such an infuriating manner that it makes the journalism in the Daily Mail look half credible. Like every one of us, I have no idea what actually happened, but the blatant misrepresentation of facts on that page actually has the inverse effect and makes me side with the McCann's rather than which ever loon put that page together.

 

[CMAC]

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but that site is written in such an infuriating manner that it makes the journalism in the Daily Mail look half credible. Like every one of us, I have no idea what actually happened, but the blatant misrepresentation of facts on that page actually has the inverse effect and makes me side with the McCann's rather than which ever loon put that page together.

agreed! what a piece of sensationalist manipulative tripe....(some is completely different from all known reports).....T'interweb is full of such idiots, what was your thoughts on posting Dodger?

 

[Swinger]

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but that site is written in such an infuriating manner that it makes the journalism in the Daily Mail look half credible. Like every one of us, I have no idea what actually happened, but the blatant misrepresentation of facts on that page actually has the inverse effect and makes me side with the McCann's rather than which ever loon put that page together.

agreed! what a piece of sensationalist manipulative tripe....(some is completely different from all known reports).....T'interweb is full of such idiots, what was your thoughts on posting Dodger?

I get that it uses every little detail to point the finger firmly at them but are there not some valid points made in the article?

I've only read down to point 7 at the moment but unless someone turns around and says that this is all complete lies and none of it happened it does make for some potentially scary conclusion making.

 

[Fish]

I get that it uses every little detail to point the finger firmly at them but are there not some valid points made in the article?

I've only read down to point 7 at the moment but unless someone turns around and says that this is all complete lies and none of it happened it does make for some potentially scary conclusion making.

I agree, I read it all (nothing better to do with the rain outside) and found some of the points raised quite alarming if factual. Strip away the dressing and repetitiveness and their is a lot of specific details in their, especially regarding the dogs and the handlers statements, change of statement (checking kids) times, change of descriptions, not disclosing sightings for days, the immediate shout of abduction, leaving the twins in the room and going off to raise the alarm! and the lists go on....

I have an open mind but as you read into it, it really is quite disturbing