Just wondering, that’s all
Perhaps this blog has posted on the McCanns before, perhaps it hasn’t, I can’t remember. However, today it’s going to. Unlike the Knox conviction where it was pretty clear in the end, this one is not clear and your humble blogger is dead centre on the issue, not knowing one way or the other.
As with the Meredith Kercher case, trial by blogger is hardly conclusive and yet here are the first things I noticed:
dan Says:
June 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pmOver the years Ive watched this case unravel, and eventhough there are counter arguments are everything pertaining to this case, if I step back and think about it, i get an ache in my gut that tells me something just isnt right.
Certainly if you look at other abduction cases, sadly those where a body is the final conclusion to the story, they bear absolutely no relation to this case, especially the actions and behaviour of the parents. And the frenzy of media coverage almost insults other similar cases, not to mention the involvement of PR men….who the hell gets them involved unless theres a reason to control the media coverage in some way, or present those involved in a certain way.
Thats what PR men do!
Most parents are simply in too much distress to even consider such things, and seeing the authorities as the only people who can help you in such situations, there is usually unconditional compliance with police investigations…thats the way we are brought up from an early age…..thats why when a police man asks you youre name you usually tell him without even thinking about it.
Theyre not the enemy, they are there to help….(I know this isnt always the case, but the McCanns seem to have been on the offensive from the start)
The dogs evidence is very important. Remember, if trained sniffer dogs arent a reliable form of gathering information, why use them at airports for finding drugs and explosives?
I just get a bad feeling when thinking about the whole thing. Things just dont add up to the presumed claim of abduction.
By aliens maybe, but human predators…nah.
dave Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 9:46 pmTrouble is with you lot you believe everything the media says….”wash the cuddle cat”. Have you ever stopped to think whether she DID actually truly wash the cuddle cat or are you believing what the Portugese police wanted you suckers to believe so they could convict the Mccanns and close the case because they were running out of money!!
There appears to be NO evidence that the cuddle cat was washed, only what the Portugese police ’say’ they have. Abit like all their other evidence then. All that they ‘botched’.
Suckers… do you feel powerful? Does it make you feel good to call someone, to run them down and accuse? Do all those innermost feelings of yours, deep down come out and make you feel better?
Take a look at yourselves.
Admin Reply: Kate McCann told Steve Swinford of the Times on Wednesday August 1, 2007 “I was desperately hoping that Madeleine would be back before the cat got washed. In the end Cuddle Cat smelt of suntan lotion and everything. I forgot what colour it was. “It was special to Madeleine, she took it to bed every night. If she was upset or tired she had Cuddle Cat. It was special to her so it’s special to me.”Considering Kate McCann said she washed Cuddle Cat, there’s not much need to stop and think about it. Hence, the Portuguese police asked her why she washed it. Also, there was no need for Kate to remain silent on the question. She had no problem telling Steve Swinford why she washed it. Why couldn’t she tell the police only a few weeks later when they asked her?
Read the full interview here: http://truthformadeleine.com/2007/08/memories-of-a-lost-daughter/
There is also a video of Philomena McCann describing why Kate washed Cuddle Cat.
Get over it Dave. Kate McCann DID wash Cuddle Cat.
This follows the 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer:
- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?
- Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply)
- (Two photographs of her bedroom’s closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?
- Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?
- How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?
- Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?
- Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside the apartment.
- Why didn’t you ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them at a later point in time?
- When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?
- What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?
- Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?
- Who contacted the authorities?
- Who participated in the searches?
- Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie’s disappearance during the following minutes?
- Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
- What does the expression “we let her down” mean?
- Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?
- How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?
- During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?
- Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?
- Who did you call after the facts?
- Did you call SKY News?
- Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?
- Did you request the presence of a priest?
- How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?
- Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
- How did you behave that evening?
- Did you manage to sleep?
- Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?
- What was Madeleine’s behaviour?
- Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?
- What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?
- What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?
- Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?
- What is your medical specialty?
- Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?
- Did you work on a daily basis?
- Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?
- Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?
- Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?
- Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?
- In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?
- Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?
- You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?
- Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?
The eternal argument
There are those who feel that anomalies, refusals, strange behaviour and prior history have no place in an investigation. There are those who feel that only a narrow selection of evidence should be considered and that if one piece of evidence does not in itself convict, then all others must be thrown out too or else ignored.
This is the Sergeant Holcombe syndrome – the ignoring of anomalies because you want to prove a different point:
Perry Mason, advocate, had just finished pointing out an anomaly in Sergeant Holcombe’s evidence in a murder trial and now asked, ‘Does that seem logical to you?’
Sergeant Holcombe hesitated a moment, then said, ‘Well, that’s one of those little things. That doesn’t cut so much ice. Lots of times you’ll find little things which are more or less inconsistent with the general interpretation of evidence.’
‘I see,’ Mason said. ‘And when you encounter such little things, what do you do, Sergeant?’
‘You just ignore ’em,’ said Holcombe.
‘And how many such things have you ignored, Sergeant, in reaching your [current] conclusion?’
When one considers police stitch-ups, the West Midlands Police spring to mind so yes, it certainly goes on. On the other hand, so does indefatigable investigation and refusal to let up in pursuit of the real story.
I don’t know about this Madeleine McCann thing. I don’t even say I have a hunch. I do know though that her behaviour has been very, very strange about the whole business and why Brown got involved in it seems even stranger.
One person who’s done his own investigation is Jailhouse Lawyer and yes, I’ve read what his detractors on this have said.
Filed under: Society & human issues
Until something new comesupit is just speculation.
Too many inconsistencies normallymean that they are lying but with plod and the media adding in bits who can tell with this case.
There is not a single shred of evidence to support any anti McCann speculation whilst indicators of corrupt and vile police involvement, abound.
Too blanket judgement in my opinion. I’m not disagreeing about the police in one respect but in another ordinary, everyday sense, where police go to work each day, I don’t believe they come to work saying, “Ha ha ha, I’m going to stitch someone up today.”
As morale in the force drops and the wrong people are recruited, we do end up with a thug force who don’t care and who will go for the easy solution but I still think there are dedicated people in there who have policed for a long time and have a nose for things.
For every one g of the political animals they’ve been turned into by Labour but basic policing they learnt in training.
Just on my first look over, it’s not so much inconsistencies as anomalies here – things just don’t add up and the behaviour is very strange for a couple who constantly had the lawyer at hand. Perhaps they were just following his advice.
I wonder whether lots of people dislike the McCanns because they both have ugly voices.
Could be – I haven’t heard them. Are they harsh?
I thin a lot of people dislike them because they left for drinky poos and fun with their mates and left a vulnerable child alone in a foreign land in this day and age.
Lindy Chamberlain was subjected to this sort of trial by media in Australia back in the 1980′s, – it was decided she was guilty of murdering her own child and her guilt was proclaimed by the newspapers, newsreaders, every bar-room lawyer and finally the courts – because no-one would believe in the dingo story.
However, eventually it was found that she was not guilty, (something to do with a police investigation that was not quite…. well we won’t go there!) but not before she had spent a fair amount of time in jail and her marriage had broken up.
So give it away you blogger jurist – or you might end up with as much egg on your face as did all those Australian newspapers who were equally convinced that another mother murdered her child – but who were wrong.
I happened to be in Australia at the time and it was by no means clear she was guiltless. No way and many Australians still think she was guilty as charged. It is not right to say she was exonerated. All that happened was that a rush to judgement and questionable practices by the police were rightly overturned.
In 1995, a third inquest into the death by Coroner John Lowndes delivered an open finding, leaving the case officially unsolved.
There is absolutely no evidence that Lindy Chamberlain is innocent and quite a lot to say the dingo story did not accord with the findings – this is another of those which goes into the “worrying anomalies but no final proof” basket.
But without proof James, she is innocent- that is the core of English liberty, if you get rid of that then you might as well get rid of everything else- I mean everything. It is not for you or I to consider guilt, it is for a jury of 12 people in a room alone together and when they come out, if they say anything apart from guilty, that person is entirely innocent. In the McCann’s case no jury has said anything and therefore they are guiltless.
In terms of anomalies- I distrust a story that has no anomalies. Life is filled with anomalies and with things that don’t fit, if the story fits too perfectly, its probably false. I’m not and never have been convinced of the McCann’s guilt- and therefore I must judge them to be innocent of any crime whatsoever.
Thought it was about time for you to drop by, Tiberius old chap and make that particular point.
I really don’t trust too much of the stuff circulated about this.
It is pretty clear that the Portuguese police were not exactly up to the standards that we hope for in the UK but don’t always get. It wasn’t all that long before the country was a dictatorship and the police there could basically do what they pleased.
On top of that it looks like the investigating officer had basically framed a mother in a previous abduction when he couldn’t solve it and when he couldn’t make the McCann one go away I do worry he tried what worked before. He was taken off the case.
I hate to think he might actually have been covering for whoever was responsible like was suggested in, was it, Belgium, but it is not impossible. I hope he was just more of a cunning incompetent strutter.
It sure looked like the police/authorities were desperate to pin it on a non Portuguese national.
I figure there would have been political pressure not to damage the local tourist industry, based round the idea of safe family friendly town.
I figure the press were hand in hand with the police and were fed a line of bs that they used to sell papers.
One thing that bugs me is all this cod psychology BS about the parents, especially the mother. This assumption being a woman she should naturally just pathetically go to pieces and disappear and it is unnatural she didn’t.
Maybe she should have just stood there uselessly wailing like those women from dusty sunny places you see on the news.The the European News might have decided the narrative was injured Motherhood and everyone would have loved her.
When bad stuff happens I figure it is way more likely you will save something from it if you do the smart thing, keep control of yourself and things, think, get a grip, keep on. They used to call it a stiff upper lip. She seems to have been desperately trying to keep control of herself so she could make sure people were actually doing the best to recover her child. Probably also felt suicidally guilty with “if onlys” about going for that meal, even tho it must have seemed safe at the time.
I can sort of see that also. The place was always known for being family/kid friendly. They must have felt the apartment was not much further away that a bedroom in a small hotel would be from it’s restaurant. they were real close.
I figure it is more likely as an intelligent strong professional woman she was doing that expressionless blank you do when you are holding onto things. They were probably thinking ‘This is a circus, what are these idiots doing’? but could not say it.
For the parents to have been truly responsible for the disappearance would most likely have needed their friends to have colluded/helped. I really don’t think that is all that believable.
I could write a post about more arguments, more stuff.. but you already did that ^_^
I have paid attention to this. Nothing I have heard so far has me convinced the parents did anything but make the mistake of thinking it was safe to go out for a meal and leave their kids in the apartment.
Dearest Moggs, I was just waiting for the defence of the woman instead of the couple and sure enough:
Especially the mother. Girls stick together, don’t they? Pretty woman = can do no wrong. Do you recall a certain Amanda Knox?
Hardly just a non-national. They happened to be the parents and their story was so full of holes it was an open invitation.
That’s a fair statement.
Can’t see that at all. It could easily have been just them, the way it happened.
The thing with Lindy Chamberlain, Knox and the McCanns is that no one wants to accept that a woman could do such a thing. That she is capable and the females tend to flock around any accused woman and auto-defend and when they patently can’t do that, as with, say, Leslie van Heuten, they tend to look for mitigation.
Men also look for mitigation if she’s pretty. If she’s not, she can go to the wolves.
So I’m having a go at the behaviour, not at the gender itself, Moggs.
Gracchi,
Innocent unless proven? What country doyou live in?
In the Uk that was from a different era. It no longer holds true.
First it changed to beyond reasonable doubt and circumstancial evidence was used as pointers.
Now, since the latest bunch have been in, the justice system is in shreds. The innocent go to jail regularly and the guilt go free.
Pretty.. Well if you say so. I think she has maybe a certain hardness about her that makes for less sympathy, from some quarters. I was defending them both, just pointing out the press seems to pick on her more than the husband.
Not a case of girls sticking together, so don’t give me all that “defense of the woman not the couple” stuff. My bet is guys are more likely to belive the best of a pretty girl than other girls are.
It does not seem to make sense to me that she harmed the child, except you could argue, by leaving them in the apartment.
As for some things, even the most rational logical person is not going to be quite sensible in the first panic.
You have to think, why would she harm her own child or cover for someone else. Also how could she really cover it, being in the company of other people?
My fear is someone saw them and targeted them while they were blissfully unaware.
You wonder, and you are right to wonder. If you keep wondering, and add some research while you’re at it, I think the doubts that you experience right now, will not be cleared – quite to the contrary. An endless pile of questions without answers, of inconsistencies, of indications. More, much more than the norm. A few abnomalies is a natural situation; in this case, abnomalies seem to be the standard, not the exception. Where is the little girl left, in the midst of it all? Not a single police force investigating her disappearance, and don’t tell me it’s not the parents’ fault, because that is not what the law says, at least Portuguese law. Keep wondering, keep researching, and while you may not reach any conclusion, you may, at least, start asking the right questions.
Right.
Ma’at – this is one I currently don’t have the time to look into and that’s why I make no definitive statement. Ditto with Chamberlain. Knox, however, I’ll argue until the cows come home because I’ve researched that one. So the McCanns – yes, you’re right – the more one looks into it, the more the anomalies accrue. I could see a Pandora’s Box here and just couldn’t run with it this time round.
I’d certainly agree with Moggs that women are actually much more likely to be hard on another woman than men are. And traditionally it’s men who stick together, James. I can remember some of the flak I’ve had on this blog as an example of that [not from you]. As for the McCanns, something’s not right but I don’t have all the facts. Kate McCann has been accused of some terrible things and that is all the more terrible assuming she is innocent. It seems she can’t do anything right: if she looked a wreck and acted like one, that would be wrong too. My worry is that the fate of the poor little girl gets forgotten in all this.
You don’t think it had any origin in what you may have written perchance?
Why would we assume that?
Most certainly.
Just like the Mercher case no conclusive proof of anything and certainly no evidence. But a lot of blabbermouths willing to stoke it all up and another corrupt police force at the centre of so much. Even the pride at stake of the force is there too. Identical really.
Poor poor couple and tragic little Madeleine.
No, nothing like the Kercher case. Your spelling of the poor girl’s name, Alison, is indicative. The innocent victim is always forgotten.