What really happened to Madeleine McCann, 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted Options

[theBreadSultan]

Madeleine McCann was reported missing by her mother, Dr Kate McCann, at 10pm on Thursday 3rd May, 2007. Since then, Madeleine, who was then nearly four, has become the best-known 'missing child' in the world. The McCanns claimed she was abducted, by an abductor who has never been traced. They said they were wining and dining in a Tapas bar 100 yards away from where they had left their three young children in their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, on the beautiful Algarve coast.

The Portuguese police believed the McCanns were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. They were made official suspects on 7th September 2007 - and remained so until July 2008. Then, the Portuguese Attorney-General announced that there was insufficient evidence for any person to be charged in connection with Madeleine's 'disappearance', though he added that there was evidence that Madeleine was dead. The McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, who used to head the government's 40-strong Media Monitoring Unit, whose function Mr Mitchell said was 'to control what comes out in the media', claimed that the McCanns had been 'cleared'.


In October 2007, the senior detective in charge, Goncalo Amaral, was replaced, claiming British government interference in his investigation. A few years earlier, he solved another 'missing child' case - that of 8-year-old Joana Cipriano. Her mother and uncle were convicted for her murder, having initially claimed she was abducted. Goncalo Amaral has since written a book, 'The Truth About A Lie', showing that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz. A documentary he made about Madeleine's death can be seen on YouTube, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxGhlYTNisw

On 9th September 2009, a Portuguese judge issued an injunction that stopped further publication or sales of Goncalo's book and also banned Amaral from repeating his claims, effectively inducing a chilling effect on the free discussion of this case in the mainstream media. This freesite attempts to mirror information related to the case in the Freenet Temporary Autonomous Zone in order to promote its discussion and unimpeded availability. This brief explanation of the most relevant facts regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was adapted from a shortened version of a 64-page booklet published in Britain in December 2008, titled: "What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted".


Reason 1: Statistics show that the vast majority of young children reported abducted from their homes are already dead


Time after time, when young children die or are killed in their own homes, parents claim their child has really been abducted. The death may be from an accident, negligence, neglect or deliberate act. We can simply say: young children are almost never kidnapped from inside their own homes. The Portuguese police were bound to be suspicious of the parents' claims that Madeleine had been abducted. But these statistics, though very persuasive, do not prove anything. So let us look at nine other reasons which suggest that she was not abducted.


Reason 2: The world-renowned British sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela, detected the scent of a corpse in 10 places which strongly suggested Madeleine died in the McCanns' holiday apartment


Here are the main facts about the findings of the two British springer spaniels, Eddie and Keela:

• They were trained by expert dog-handler Martin Grime and are internationally famed for being able to detect the presence of a corpse (Eddie) or blood (Keela);
• Grime said that Eddie had never ever given a 'false alert' in 200 previous outings;
• Eddie alerts only to human cadaverine - the scent of a human corpse. This is usually only produced in a corpse when the body has been dead for over 2 hours;
• Eddie alerted to the scent of a corpse in the following places: the living room, the McCanns' bedroom, the veranda and the garden of their holiday apartment, on two of Dr Kate McCann's clothes, on a T-shirt belonging to Madeleine or brother Sean, and on the pink soft toy, 'Cuddle Cat' (despite the fact that Dr Kate McCann had already washed Cuddle Cat at least once);
• Eddie also detected the smell of death in the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic car;
• Keela found blood at some of the same locations;
• Eddie and Keela were taken to many other apartments and cars in Praia da Luz, but did not alert anywhere else;
• checks were made by the Portuguese police as to whether anyone else had died in the McCanns' apartment or in their car. No-one had;
• a neighbour made a witness statement saying that for weeks she saw the McCanns' hired car with its boot open all night long.

The dogs' evidence was therefore very clear: a corpse had been in all those 10 locations, and it could only have been the corpse of Madeleine McCann.


Reason 3: The strange reactions of the McCanns when they became aware of the sniffer dogs' findings


The McCanns initially reacted by desperately inventing possible explanations for the dogs' findings. Family members claimed the death smell on Dr Kate McCann's clothes was due to having attended six corpses at work during the fortnight before her holiday. She even claimed that the death smell on 'Cuddle Cat' was because she took Madeleine's toy to work. Then they claimed the smell of death and body fluids found in the car could have come from 'rotting meat' and 'dirty nappies' in the boot. Finally, they fell back on claiming the dogs' findings were 'unreliable' and 'valueless'. These explanations were offered only to the media, not to the police.


Reason 4: The sheer impossibility of the abduction scenario


The McCanns have claimed that the abductor entered through an unlocked patio door, found Madeleine in the dark, then decided to open curtains, window and shutter of the children's bedroom and climb through a window 3 feet above the ground and barely 2 feet wide. He is supposed to have done this without waking any of the three children. According to the McCanns and their friends, he must have done this within the space of 2-3 minutes, in the dark, without being seen or heard, nor leaving any forensic traces like fingerprints, hair, fibres, skin fragments, shoe prints, or glove marks, nor any trace of abrasion marks on or around the window and window-sill. This scenario is so unlikely that we can simply say: this did not happen. When the window-frame was examined, only Dr Kate McCann's fingerprints were found on it.


Reason 5: The refusal of the McCanns and their friends to help the police


• In September 2007, the police asked Dr Kate McCann 48 questions about Madeleine's disappearance. She only answered this one: "Are you aware that in not answering the questions, you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?" She answered: "Yes, if that's what the investigation thinks";
• the McCanns deleted mobile phone records, and refused to allow the Portuguese police to examine any of their medical or financial records including credit card records;
• the McCanns publicly offered to take a lie detector test, then changed their minds;
• the McCanns and their 'Tapas 7' friends also refused to attend a proposed police reconstruction of the events the night Madeleine was reported missing. Yet they travelled to Portugal for a Channel 4 film which reconstructed their own version of what happened the night Madeleine was reported missing;
• a Portuguese newspaper, Sol, tried to talk to one of the McCanns' friends, Dr David Payne, about what had happened. He refused to talk, saying: "This is our matter. We have a pact". He added that all requests for quotes and interviews must go through Dr Gerald McCann. Why would the group need to have what has been called a 'Pact of Silence' about the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's 'disappearance'?


Reason 6: Changes of story by the McCanns and their friends


There have been many changes of story by the McCanns and their friends, and many contradictions within their versions of events - far too many to list here. For example:

• initially, the McCanns claimed that an abductor forced entry to the apartment by 'jemmying open the shutters'. The police and Mark Warners' staff examined the shutters, proving this was untrue. The McCanns quickly changed their story to say the abductor must have come in via the open patio door and exited through a small bedroom window;
• the description of an abductor by McCanns' friend Jane Tanner changed several times;
• until very recently, the McCanns' website described a moustachoed man, over 6ft tall, as 'the probable abductor', when there was no evidence connecting this man, seen by a tourist days before Madeleine was reported missing, to the events the night Madeleine went missing. Further, he looks nothing like the 5' 7" man described by Jane Tanner.


Reason 7: The McCanns' rush to appoint lawyers and PR experts


Immediately Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns appointed many lawyers and public relations experts to help them, including extradition lawyers. What use would lawyers and PR experts be in finding their daughter? Maybe the McCanns knew from the outset that they would need lawyers and PR folk to defend them?


Reason 8: The strange reactions of the McCanns and their friends after Kate claimed to have found Madeleine missing


What is one to make of these reactions of Dr Kate McCann on finding Madeleine missing and stating she noticed the shutter and window open?

• she searched the apartment 'for 10 minutes', despite on her own evidence the probability that she was not there;
• she left the twins in her apartment whilst she ran to the 'Tapas Bar' to raise the alarm;
• she failed to check on the twins' well-being. The first thought through most mothers' minds would have been whether they could also have been interfered with.

In addition:

• in the days after Madeleine went missing, the McCanns were apparently happy to leave the twins in the kindergarten whilst they courted the media. If they were genuinely distraught by losing one child, would they not stay protectively close to the two they had left?
• the McCanns admit they never physically searched for Madeleine;
• despite the claim of Jane Tanner that she had seen a man walking with a child in a certain direction, the McCanns and their friends failed to organise a concerted search in along the route he might have taken.


Reason 9: Making long-term plans to mark Madeleine's alleged abduction whilst claiming she was alive and could still be found


From the early days, the McCanns made plans for events to mark the day Madeleine went missing - a sign they didn't expect to find her:

• just a month after she 'disappeared', Dr Gerald McCann said: "We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing. It won't be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that";
• then, on 28 June 2007, he said: "I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine's disappearance in the long-term";
• the McCanns trademarked the name "Madeleine's Fund" and highlighted Madeleine's eye defect - the coloboma - boasting that her eye defect was 'a valuable marketing ploy'. This was against the advice of the Portuguese police. You can view where Dr Gerald McCann says this at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvdnzIGtf50 (video was removed by user in the meantime)

Why make long-term plans if Madeleine could be found at any time? Strangely, Madeleine's eye defect doesn't figure in 'Missing Person' descriptions of her on the Portuguese police or Interpol websites. In March 2009, before a Parliamentary Committee, Dr McCann claimed British media made Madeleine 'a commodity'. Yet just a fortnight after Madeleine went missing, he and his advisors set up a website, a private company to raise money (note: not a charity), and produced goods for sale.


Reason 10: Dr Kate McCann washing the toy 'Cuddle Cat'


The McCanns claimed Madeleine always took her favourite soft toy, 'Cuddle Cat', with her. They then said the abductor had handled 'Cuddle Cat', placing it on 'a high shelf or ledge'. The abductor could have left valuable forensic traces on the toy. So why did Dr Kate McCann decide to thoroughly wash it, something most mothers say they could never do to the soft toy of their missing child. Later, despite Dr Kate McCann washing Cuddle Cat, cadaver dog Eddie detected the smell of death on it. The smell of death remains on items long after they have been thoroughly cleaned.


What you can do now.

If Madeleine McCann was not abducted, and died in the McCanns' apartment in Portugal, as the original PJ senior detective in the case has very good reason to believe, then those that caused or allowed her death have - so far - got away with it. If you want to help, raising awareness of this case amongst your peers and/or putting an activelink in your freesite is always good. Physical or psychological abuse/negligence towards children is intolerable and should be investigated to the maximum extent, especially given the amount of resources that are currently spent on persecuting thoughtcriminals which have a much arguable connection to child abuse.

[MajinBangFlash]

I didn't bother to read the post, but my response : When it's a white kid (Especially a girl), in Europe, Shit hits the fan.
When it's some black boy in Africa, nobody does a thing to expose it.

[X-M-O]

I didn't bother to read the post, but my response : When it's a white kid (Especially a girl), in Europe, Shit hits the fan.
When it's some black boy in Africa, nobody does a thing to expose it.

This is a serious discussion topic, if you don't bother to read the post then don't bother to respond - thank you.
Also note that your response is of a completely different subject. =\




Anyway, I watched this when it first became news and was quite upset by the fact that Mr./Mrs. McCann could have allowed their children to be unattended whilst they were off at a bar.
Some time later I saw Goncalo Amaral's assessment and assumed that the investigation was complete and the parents were going to be found guilty of murdering their own child.
Of course this didn't happen.
The points you've mentioned (theBreadSultan) are valid points, but they aren't allnecessary to convince me; the first few would have convinced me then and are still very good arguments to make even now. I don't understand why the McCann parents are still free...
But then, I never understand when justice isn't served. =\

[Garlyle]

But then, I never understand when justice isn't served. =\

I might be wrong, but isn't a conviction of guilt served on the basis where the individual is guilty "Beyond a reasonable doubt"? It's easy to jump to the statement of "Oh hey they're a criminal obviously given this!", but we're neither the police nor the court. We're not aware of everything firsthand - we might be able to record and note suspicious behaviours, but any actual evidence is information we've recieved secondhand. And when it comes to placing blame we should always hesistate when all we have is secondhand information. Not only that, but several of those things are really quite testy - point one, "statistics say it's likely that..." is complete nonsense in court.

So too are the "Oh they should have acted such and such a way" arguments - the first thing any psych student would tell you is that people do NOT always react the same way to the same situation. Not that some of that stuff isn't grounds for suspicion - some of it really is - But that's it. It isn't actual proof in the slightest. And again, this is all secondhand information we're recieving. You're getting it from outside sources. And if there's one thing media outlets love to do, it's cover every detail and accusation and suspicious testimony and 'professional assessment', regardless of its veracity, in the hope of drawing attention. I've watched it happen. If you pay attention, one of the investigators decided to sell a book about the case.

If her parents have reasonable grounds for suspicion, yes, then they'd be on the suspect list of the police. Cops don't go out and imprison everyone they have reason to suspect. I might be a bit different from you here, but I'm pretty sure that being accused of murder (or willful neglect, whatever you want to charge it on in this one) is something nobody who's innocent want to face, and I'd rather the law err on the side of hesitation.

And ultimately, remember that extremely little of that information would actually hold up in court. If you took this information to me and I was in the jury, I would still find reasonable doubt. Grounds for suspicion =/= evidence.

EDIT: And yes, I know, this took place in Portugal. I'm completely unfamiliar with Portugal's justice system however; the best I can do is voice things to a system I do understand. And no, before someone accuses me: I'm not "against justice" or any crap; I just often feel that were the media, the unlinked public, and general sensationalism allowed to determine who was guilty or not, that a great many innocent people could suffer.

This post has been edited by Garlyle: Feb 6 2011, 07:26 AM

[Sparrowsmith]

But then, I never understand when justice isn't served. =\

I might be wrong, but isn't a conviction of guilt served on the basis where the individual is guilty "Beyond a reasonable doubt"? It's easy to jump to the statement of "Oh hey they're a criminal obviously given this!", but we're neither the police nor the court. We're not aware of everything firsthand - we might be able to record and note suspicious behaviours, but any actual evidence is information we've recieved secondhand. And when it comes to placing blame we should always hesistate when all we have is secondhand information. Not only that, but several of those things are really quite testy - point one, "statistics say it's likely that..." is complete nonsense in court.

So too are the "Oh they should have acted such and such a way" arguments - the first thing any psych student would tell you is that people do NOT always react the same way to the same situation. Not that some of that stuff isn't grounds for suspicion - some of it really is - But that's it. It isn't actual proof in the slightest. And again, this is all secondhand information we're recieving. You're getting it from outside sources. And if there's one thing media outlets love to do, it's cover every detail and accusation and suspicious testimony and 'professional assessment', regardless of its veracity, in the hope of drawing attention. I've watched it happen. If you pay attention, one of the investigators decided to sell a book about the case.

If her parents have reasonable grounds for suspicion, yes, then they'd be on the suspect list of the police. Cops don't go out and imprison everyone they have reason to suspect. I might be a bit different from you here, but I'm pretty sure that being accused of murder (or willful neglect, whatever you want to charge it on in this one) is something nobody who's innocent want to face, and I'd rather the law err on the side of hesitation.

And ultimately, remember that extremely little of that information would actually hold up in court. If you took this information to me and I was in the jury, I would still find reasonable doubt. Grounds for suspicion =/= evidence.

I was waiting for someone to say this.
Garlyle is completely right.

Even though I think the evidence is thought provoking, I think there are very few courts that would be convinced enough to arrest them. Frankly I knew from the get go that they wouldn't be put away for it even if they did do it, so it should have just been dropped. The police did the next best thing and just called off the search. They knew there was no maddy to be found, and you don't need a jury to call off a search.
The McCanns turned to the media though, who ate up the story and spat it in our faces.

There isn't enough evidence to convict the McCanns, but there's enough evidence to just drop it all.
The object of law is prevention, not punishment. Locking away the McCanns won't bring back Maddie, but if they're wrong then it'll orphan to children who have already lost their eldest sibling.
There's more to law than guilty and innocent. That's why we have the reasonable doubt.

I would advise watching Twelve Angry Men to understand why reasonable doubt is important.

[theBreadSultan]

the main points for me are 2 and 4 -

The sniffer dogs - and the sheer implausibility of it all.

The McCanns have claimed that the abductor entered through an unlocked patio door, found Madeleine in the dark, then decided to open curtains, window and shutter of the children's bedroom and climb through a window 3 feet above the ground and barely 2 feet wide. He is supposed to have done this without waking any of the three children. According to the McCanns and their friends, he must have done this within the space of 2-3 minutes, in the dark, without being seen or heard, nor leaving any forensic traces like fingerprints, hair, fibres, skin fragments, shoe prints, or glove marks, nor any trace of abrasion marks on or around the window and window-sill. This scenario is so unlikely that we can simply say: this did not happen. When the window-frame was examined, only Dr Kate McCann's fingerprints were found on it.

so this guy manages to enter the bedroom containing 3 sleeping childres, and without waking ANY OF THEM - opens the shutter and curtain and window - then climb out of a 2 ft wide window (with the sleeping 5 year old in his arms) who also does not wake up - without leaving a TRACE of DNA -

If i was in a jury and you come before me - and sniffer dogs have found corpse sent on your clothes and in your car - and you cannot explain that - then you are halfway to prison -

ADD to that the fact that you report your child missing to the police, and then when they question you - you REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS!!!

you are now 75% probably guilty

then lets take into account that when they did talk to the police, they LIED and then changed their story.

you are now 95% probably guilty

and finaly - you wash the childs toy, which is almost certain to contain vital forensic evidence - as it was handled by the "abductor"

you are now destroying evidence

you are guilty

lets review.

sniffer dogs identify that a dead body has been in contact with your clothes, your car, and the childs toy

you lied to the police - then refused to answer ANY questions

and you destroyed forensic evidence.

WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS?

Your child has been abducted - so you decide to obstruct the police and destroy evidence?

[Garlyle]

you are now destroying evidence

you are guilty

This is the only thing in your entire post that is actually accurate - and even then, all it is, is that you could be convicted for obstruction of justice.

Let me ask you something: do you understand the difference between Circumstantial Evidence and Direct Evidence?

Circumstantial evidence is what you have listed. These are things suggesting an occurance. Suspicious actions, unusual timings, "Yeah I think they might have been there at the night it happened", these kinds of things are circumstantial. They are not proof. With enough, they can corroborate a possible sequence of events - but so long as all evidence is circumstantial, there is always room for another explanation. In a court of law, it takes a huge amount of circumstantial evidence to reduce something past a reasonable doubt, especially without hard evidence.

Direct evidence is what you need. It is evidence that proves the assertion directly. How did the child die, for instance? In another case, if it was a murder per say, you'd have a murder weapon and a wound on the body. There doesn't appear to be anything of this sort in this case - no weapon and even less of a body. And there's nothing in anything you've brought up. Circumstantial evidence that aligns with direct evidence becomes much stronger than circumstantial evidence alone, and becomes legitimate evidence for proving a sequence of events.

All that's been shown is that they could likely be called on Obstruction of Justice - which I'm pretty sure is rather minor in terms of an offense. You can't actually prove at all what happened. Calling out "they're guilty!"... of what? Murder? Criminal Neglect? Conspiracy? Or just an ethical crime of trying to make money off of their loss? Could the child have died of natural causes earlier, and the parents wanted to avoid dealing with the usual funeral mess? Maybe they're just really terrible parents - is that necessarily criminal? You're right in that there's quite likely something going on. But only in that there's likely something going on. You don't have, through this, enough evidence to solidly say "this is how it happened", and no evidence that could exist precisely because of that. Hell, you can't even give an explanation of what did happen. There is, therefore, still reasonable doubt.

And before you try to say something like "What other explanation is there?", right now, you're the one trying to prove what did happen, and you haven't provided more than just reason for suspicion. The onus is therefore on you to prove what happened.

And finally, I'd hate to see you on a jury, naming someone guilty on the basis of them acting suspicious. Quite literally, you revealed your view of things as "Okay, there's room for doubt, but they act questionable so it's gotta be them!". That's not good.

This post has been edited by Garlyle: Feb 7 2011, 07:45 AM

[theBreadSultan]

you are now destroying evidence

you are guilty

This is the only thing in your entire post that is actually accurate - and even then, all it is, is that you could be convicted for obstruction of justice.

Let me ask you something: do you understand the difference between Circumstantial Evidence and Direct Evidence?

no i don't - please can you explain it to me?

Circumstantial evidence is what you have listed. These are things suggesting an occurance. Suspicious actions, unusual timings, "Yeah I think they might have been there at the night it happened", these kinds of things are circumstantial. They are not proof. With enough, they can corroborate a sequence of events - but so long as all evidence is circumstantial, there is always room for another explanation. In a court of law, it takes a huge amount of circumstantial evidence to reduce something past a reasonable doubt, especially without hard evidence.

Direct evidence is what you need. It is evidence that proves the assertion directly. How did the child die, for instance? In another case, if it was a murder per say, you'd have a murder weapon and a wound on the body. There doesn't appear to be anything of this sort in this case - no weapon and even less of a body. And there's nothing in anything you've brought up.

oh thanks for clearing that up

All that's been shown is that they could likely be called on Obstruction of Justice - which I'm pretty sure is rather minor in terms of an offense. You can't actually prove at all what happened. Calling out "they're guilty!"... of what? Murder? Criminal Neglect? Conspiracy? Or just an ethical crime of trying to make money off of their loss? Could the child have died of natural causes earlier, and the parents wanted to avoid dealing with the usual funeral mess? Maybe they're just really terrible parents - is that necessarily criminal? You're right in that there's quite likely something going on. But only in that there's likely something going on. You don't have, through this, enough evidence to solidly say "this is how it happened", and no evidence that could exist precisely because of that. There is, therefore, still reasonable doubt

So by your own admission - they are guilty of "Obstruction of Justice"

So WHY would you obstruct justice when the life of your own child is at risk?
where is the motive?
because if they had committed a crime - then destroying forensic evidence, Lying, failing to co-operate with the police, being unable to explain the Corpse-detection from the dogs, and changing the story many times over.
the witness statement - about how they left the boot of the car open all night.

So what is the explanation then.

lets see, your child is abducted - you call the police - and then the first thing you do is lie to them?
why would you do that?
surely the only thing going through your mind is - where is she - why are you lying to the police.
and it's obviously a constructed lie - these are made with a calm rationale -
This means that they had decided to lie to the police before they even called the police.

why?
why lie if you have nothing to hide?

and just because they can't bring it to court - doesn't mean they didn't do it.

courts operate on the basis of
"better to let 1000 guilty men walk free, than to put one innocent man in prison"

[Garlyle]

So by your own admission - they are guilty of "Obstruction of Justice"

Yes, and somehow, I doubt them being guilty of that is the kind of 'justice' you'd want them to face. After all, it's in similar leagues and categorized with Contempt of Court or Obstruction by Harassment. Can these be serious? Yeah, but in general? Nowhere near as serious as a conviction of murder.
EDIT: Actually, the maximum penalty for destruction of evidence can be 20 years, at least in the US. Huhn.

so what is the explanation then.

lets see, your child is abducted - you call the police - and then the first thing you do is lie to them?
why would you do that?
surely the only thing going through your mind is - where is she - why are you lying to the police.
and it's obviously a constructed lie - these are made with a calm rationale -
This means that they had decided to lie to the police before they even called the police.

why?
why lie if you have nothing to hide?

and just because they can't bring it to court - doesn't mean they didn't do it.

This does not explain to me a single thing about what actually happened to the girl. It doesn't explain how she died or what is actually being covered up by this lie. Were they lying to try to protect themselves, or someone else, for instance? Are you saying they're lying to cover up their child's death through their own neglect, violence they deliberately perpetrated, or some other means? And if you have an answer for any of this - was there any evidence uncovered that proves any of this?

Again, all you are proving is the likelyhood of them being involved - not that they were.

This post has been edited by Garlyle: Feb 7 2011, 07:56 AM

[theBreadSultan]

well obviously they were lying to protect themselves.

One thing that you have to give the police to their credit - if something big is going down - they will concentrate on that and not give a shit about the small things.

there was NO REASON to lie to the police, UNLESS you do not want them to know WHY the child was missing.
and what is the ONLY reason you would not want to help the police know why a child is missing, is if your the ones who did it.

people in these situations - naturally - do not move to protect themselves.
If a child is missing - snatched - then a parents instinct is to do everything to get that child back.
this is overriding -
why do you lie - to hide something - if you had nothing to do with the crime - why lie?

and then on top of that sniffer dogs find a dead body was transported / stored in the boot of your car.

so a girl is missing - and the MAIN SUSPECTS - have lied to the police, have had a dead body in their car - and also refuse to answer questions to the police.

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

where is the motive - oh no my child has been abducted - the first 24hours is crucial to finding her - so i know what i'm going to lie to the police, and then when i am discovered to be lying i'm going to stonewall them


yea - thats what innocent victims do....

[Garlyle]

I'm going to pick your statements apart here.

well obviously they were lying to protect themselves.

If you ever have to say 'Well, obviously', you're making a giant assumption. An assumption is precisely the issue here - you have to make them to accuse the parents of anything other than destruction of evidence. We're honestly making a pretty big assumption in believing this to be true in the first place, given that this is all secondhand; but assuming it is, you're still having to make a jump. You haven't proven what they've done.

people in these situations - naturally - do not move to protect themselves.
If a child is missing - snatched - then a parents instinct is to do everything to get that child back.

This seems reasonable... assuming they are good parents. Trying to claim an action against instinct or 'this is the way people act' is bullshit. People have unusual reactions to shocking or stressful situations. To me, the idea of simply trying to move on when faced with the loss of someone, to shove it aside and not want to deal with it, is a possibility - it could be that within their social situation they realised the chances of getting their family back was slim, and ultimately decided to accept the loss and move on. Does that sound heartless? Probably. But how is it necessarily impossible?

where is the motive - oh no my child has been abducted - the first 24hours is crucial to finding her - so i know what i'm going to lie to the police, and then when i am discovered to be lying i'm going to stonewall them
rolleyes.gif

You have no idea what 'Motive' actually means, do you? Either that or you changed thoughts halfway through writing that sentence. Motive, with relation to a crime, is the reason for an individual to perpetrate a crime. Amusingly enough, "Where is the motive?" is what I'm going to ask you again - what are you suggesting they're covering up?

so a girl is missing - and the MAIN SUSPECTS - have lied to the police, have had a dead body in their car - and also refuse to answer questions to the police.

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

Well, that's a good question. Once again, though, the onus is on you to say why, as you're taking the role of accuser.

There are several very likely scenarios in my head, and here's a few of the questions you'd need to be able to answer for me - and this is all beginning with a huge assumption - that she died before 'disappearing', and that she died in the house. It might sound obvious, but it's a pretty big one to make, and it is entirely possible for other explanations to be given.

1. When did the child actually die? All we have been supplied with is the date at which she was reported missing. Did she actually die when the parents were away... or beforehand? Is it possible she died a week or so before, even? If she disappeared or died beforehand, what could have happened in that time?
2. Speaking of which, how did she die - if she indeed did? We don't know. It may be a safe assumption that she died within the home, based on the presence of the corpse scent. There are reports of traces of blood, but we don't know they're hers. Did she die from a simple trip and fall that broke her head on something solid? Was she abused, and her death an act of deliberate violence? Or did she die of some natural cause, and the blood in fact was from a former injury? The most sinister answer, of course, is she died of abuse - is that what happened? If it was an accidental death, could the parents have formed a coverup to try to avoid being accused of neglect?
3. What was the status of the parents when she died? Were they with her? If they weren't, and they truly did find her and cover things up, was she dead when they found her or still injured? Most importantly, was there someone else with the children instead? A relative or friend? We don't actually have an answer about whether or not another person was there. If there was, it opens up the possibility of another individual's fault in the death, and that the parents are in fact lying to cover for that individual.
4. The most logical explanation that you seem to be pushing for, that is indeed suggested by the corpse scent in the car, is that they moved the body. However, there are unexplained limitations on the corpse scent evidence - given the family's floorplan, does it provide a reasonable path towards the vehicle? Is it possible for the scent to have transferred from various items onto one another, contaminating them? Are they in a situation where witnesses could collaborate having seen them leave to do so? Not only that, but for them to have moved the body somewhere far enough for it to not have been found, they must have found it significantly before the reported missing child - further opening up the question of what happened in that timeframe?


Could the parents have simply woken up to her dead one morning, and in a grief-borne panic, feared they would be thought of as murderers (I can't speak for the social situation in Portugal; perhaps for racial or economic reasons they're hated by the locals?) - and so decided at the time that the best course of action would be to cover up the whole thing, bury their child elsewhere before alerting anyone, and live through the lie? To me, this is an extremely possible scenario. It is also one in which the family is as much victims as the child who died.

Could a family member, asked to look after the child, have accidentally killed her or had the child die in an accident? This person could have covered their own tracks, maybe even borrowed the family vehicle; more likely, they may have asked for the McCann parents' forgiveness and help. It seems crazy, but not everyone's first and foremost love and loyalty is to their own children - they may be lying to try to cover for another person. If this was someone regularly around, then evidence of their existance in the area would've been thurough enough to be of little note, and the real individual 'responsible' (in some varied way, whether lying about murder or just being witness to an accident) might not be the one being targetted.

Could the parents have abused her, gone off to wine and dine, and come home to find the injuries had killed her, and in their desperation, decided to cover up the murder? This is also a possible scenario. It carries an extremely different set of implications about what they are covering up, however - and in a court of law would be a very different conviction.

Could it be something else: Could she have actually been kidnapped and held for ransom or threat, and the family, out of fear, failed to go to the police, and eventually crafted a cover story when they didn't get their daughter back to avoid being held as criminals and/or provoking the real ones? That sounds outlandish and it does require an explanation for the scents - but it's very possible given the logic I've already used that she died or disappeared well any amount of time she was actually reported.


I have to admit, maybe it's because I played a little too much Phoenix Wright - but there are far too many 'logistical holes' in this for me to jump in and claim guilt, because I don't even know what I'd be naming them guilty of. You're so hung up on "they lied" that you're literally just jumping back to that, over and over. I've asked several times for you to tell me what happened that they are lying to cover up, and all you answer me with is "their guilt". That's not what I'm asking for. In a court of law, that would not suffice. I am asking for logistics, proof, and evidence - I want you to give me some sort of information that tells me what actually happened.

After all, for an individual to actually be guilty, something criminal has to have occured. What the criminal action was, has not yet been defined.


As a final aside: I believe you are correct in that this case probably should not be just left to go cold. But I also believe it's important that you, and others who see this, understand precisely what the holes in this situation are, as far as the public understands, and why things are likely the way they are - and that instantly assuming guilt is a bad thing to do. There's a huge, understandable tendency innate to humans to suspect the worst when given reason to suspect. But we tend to forget how many assumptions we make and how much we don't actually know.

This post has been edited by Garlyle: Feb 7 2011, 09:14 AM

[theBreadSultan]

I'm going to pick your statements apart here.

and FAIL -

IF a DEATH is not your fault - you don't need to lie about it - creating lies and deception will actually hurt your cause - and don't think that people who's job it is to interrogate people can be so easily fooled by a bunch of AMATEUR liars

which is probably why they were named as suspects by the Portuguese police.

when you are faced with the possibility of being suspected and charged with MURDER - you basically don't fuck about.
This i know because i have been there.

You tell the police what happened - you answer questions as openly as you can.
This is because you have nothing to hide.

Why would you stonewall the police?
why would you lie to them?

there may not be enough evidence to charge them, but then people get away with bad things ALL the time.

If i had £10 to bet on it - i would bet that they were involved in their childs death.
and it was no accident.

because your not going to
a. bury your child in some anonymous patch of earth you can never return to
b. risk the serious jail time that would come with being discovered by anyone burying or transporting a dead child
c. tell lies to the police, refuse to answer questions and destroy forensic evidence.

if it was an accident.
you can say what you want - but if you honestly believe that the Mcanns were innocent victims of a random Child snatcher - then your a mug.

end of

[Garlyle]

You... don't get it, do you?

I've given you a HUGE amount of probable situations, alternate explanations, and questions that deserve to be answered - and all you can do is go "No, this has to be it because that's not the way you should act". I can tell you that no, people do NOT always wish to deal with police, nor in the panic that should be caused by the loss of a child consider logical action to always be the course to take. They may very well have, for instance, moved the body while in an irrational state and under an irrational decision - and come to regret it, creating the half-assed story they later used.

Why would you stonewall the police?
why would you lie to them?

I don't know, but I've given some possible explanations. You are the accuser. You tell me why they are doing it. The onus of motive falls on the accusers. And I'm not talking "to cover something up", I mean flat out: what exactly do you believe they are covering up?

but if you honestly believe that the Mcanns were innocent victims of a random Child snatcher - then your a mug.

end of

First off, I'm having trouble making sense of everything after the word 'snatcher'. Just wanted you to know.

Second, when did I suggest anything about my thoughts on their guilt? This is not at all about what I personally believe, nor did I ever bring my own thoughts on the matter into this - I am, however, challenging a one-sided assertion that refuses to actually back itself up or explain itself thuroughly. Hell, just the fact that you consider one sole other possibility to be their initial explanation just shows your failure to consider alternatives.

Finally, by 'end of', do you mean that you have nothing more to say? In that case, here's my final words as well: When held up to scrutiny, your case has failed. You have utterly failed to say anything other than "I suspect them". If your intent was to convince people of the guilt of some individuals, your failure to meet with any of the questions, possibilities, or requests I've made about the situation, with anything other than the exact same unrelated statement, if anything, make them look less guilty, because the accuser (you) is clearly incapable of backing up their statements.

I've kept asking you to provide some explanation or proof of what you believe happened. But you've failed to even cast away any of the doubts and questions surrounding the situation, at least some of which are certainly answerable. You haven't even tried. And if you're not going to, you probably should not respond to this post - I don't think much more can be said that hasn't already been said if your answer is once again going to be best summed up as "They're clearly covering... something... up."

This is the serious discussion board. If you're not interested in actually discussing things, or having a claim challenged - and rising to that claim - you probably shouldn't have posted this kind of thing here.

This post has been edited by Garlyle: Feb 7 2011, 09:49 AM

[theBreadSultan]

Your questions were not addressed directly because they were pointless -

what is the title of this post?

10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted.

thus your arguments of "where is the proof" are invalid.
Yes because i'm going to magic some proof that the police forces of 2 countries have missed?

And i am not talking about some generic - Legal BS - point scoring match of well this could be explained blah blah - in a court of law waffle waffle.

I am talking about a specific child - that was killed.

or who's death was covered up - by her parents, and their friends.

you tell me i don't know what a motive is - but i fear perhaps it is YOU who misunderstand -

I'll bring to effect sparrows favourite - OCCAMS RAZOR

why dont you provide a possible explanation for all 10 points and sub-points in the OP

then we will see which answer is the simplest and makes the least assumptions....

because all of them can be answered with 1 key fact - they were in some way responsible for maddies death.

this is a position that makes 1 assumption.

so yea - go against all 10 points - making one assumption or less,
or see the error of what you say.

[Garlyle]

Your questions were not addressed directly because they were pointless -

what is the title of this post?

10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted.

Okay, fine, it's suggestions - but the OBJECTIVE of the post and your followups is to stir suspicion and attempt to show these individuals as the guilty party, clearly. More than that, ultimately, this is a discussion board, and discussing a "suggestion" is pretty much ridiculous, as - as you can clearly demonstrate - it can be reduced down to "oh it's just a suggestion so whatever", and that's stupid. What we can discuss, however, is the situation, the likelyhood, the legal issues, potentially the reality of this situation. We can discuss whether or not these things actually mean anything.

thus your arguments of "where is the proof" are invalid.
Yes because i'm going to magic some proof that the police forces of 2 countries have missed?

No, but in theory, if there has been oh so much investigation, surely there must be something out there? Hell, you could at least try to come up with a version of events that you think is most likely, but you haven't even done that. My argument of 'where's the proof' is neither invalid - as it proves exactly my point that they could not be found guilty as there seems to be none - and also has shown that all you have is suspicion.

You found this information, somewhere, clearly. It means information on things is out there.

And i am not talking about some generic - Legal BS - point scoring match of well this could be explained blah blah - in a court of law waffle waffle.

Again. Serious discussion board. You are on it. If you're not interested in discussing, DON'T POST. I chose a method through which things could be discussed - and a very reasonable method (legal proof) given that we're discussing crime and the guilt of individuals, and you challenged it - and are now backing down on a desire to. Not only that, but you're being rude about it. Seriously.

I am talking about a specific child - that was killed.

or who's death was covered up - by her parents, and their friends.

First off, thank you for actually saying what you think happened... no, wait, nevermind. You're not even sure yourself.

Secondly, yes, you are talking about a specific child. But you yourself seem to be hung up on the emotion of the situation rather than actual rational thought.

you tell me i don't know what a motive is - but i fear perhaps it is YOU who misunderstand -

Misunderstands what? I've been polite enough to make clear where I believe your understanding on issues is mistaken, so please, actually expand upon your percieved misunderstanding on my part.

OCCAMS RAZOR

Now that I actually bother to look this up, you should be aware - there are a HELL of a lot of assumptions being made by this information in the first place, in reality. And second: it's not entirely a valid logical argument or basis for claiming correctness - it might suggest an explanation that's most likely, but trying to argue that an alternate answer is impossible, invalid, or pointless simply because it requires a little extra explanation is false logic. It's only going to suggest what is the most likely course of action or reality of events.

so yea - go against all 10 points - making one assumption or less,

For me to actually 'go against' a point, I cannot treat them as just possibilities - once again, going on the basis that this is a discussion board; and therefore its their veracity that's up for questioning. I'm not going to say "It's not a suggestion", that would be stupid and can't really be discussed - but what I can go against is whether or not any point is proof of something.

1. Statistical probability has no bearing on the reality of any individual situation. No assumptions necessary.
2. This is difficult to refute; however, there are alternative possibilites around a lack of information - could the smell of death have been transferred from something else (see 3)? Also, how long does this scent stay? Blood was found, yes, but nothing is said about whether or not it was hers. While this is a definite grounds for suspicion, I've never denied it - there are still a lot of questions ultimately unanswered about the nature of the cadaver scent that leave much of this point up to questioning. This is not a case of assumption - it is, in fact, that I am NOT assuming many things, and thus do not have answers.
3. While multiple explanations are suspicious, the individual explanations are not impossible. The first two especially so, as we've limited information about the scent itself. No assumptions necessary, but I can't completely refute its possibility.
4. Given the current situation as I know it, I cannot refute this. This is merely proof of a false story, however. And the importance of that comes up in 5...
5. While suspicious, not everyone wants to deal with the police. Assumption in this case is an alternate explanation: They have other matters they don't want to be investigated. The relation of these to the disappearance of their child is irrelevant - if they had other illegal actions to hide, it would fully explain their lack of desire to co-operate with the police.
6. I can't just pass this off like 4 or 5, and must concede this as a point towards proof that they were lying about something. It's not completely unusual for the story of someone involved in a case to change, however, and it's important to remember that. I could also discuss the basis of memory from a psychological standpoint and how it is never some sort of picture-perfect image and is tainted by experience, but I doubt you'd accept this one, and it still wouldn't shake the fact that it's hard to deny a lie in this case.
7. It's suspicious, but if they had the money to do this immediately, we have to remember that for those of high socio-economic status, those in positions with a lot to lose do a lot to defend themselves and their reputations. In all seriousness I do not find this that unusual.
8. Much of this runs on the expectation of specific behaviour patterns under stressful stimuli (A significant assumption), and my response is as it always has been: stressful stimuli do not provoke the same answers from all people. I'm actually refusing the assumption made in the first place.
9. I see this purely as people being practical about the situation. Hell, if anything, just read those with the opening phrase of "They planned ahead to keep the search for their daughter going and funded as long as it took". It has the effect of flipping much of this into looking almost proactive. Assumption being made: What the ultimate intention was... for both ways.
10. I do wish to call to question, again, the timeframe of the girl's death, if she was still in contact with the toy long enough for it to inherit the scent of death. To be honest however, that's about the best I can do - I'm forced to concede this one as leaning far too much on the side of suspicious activity to be denied.


Regardless of whether I have met your challenge satisfactorily at this point, I don't care. I'm pretty convinced that you're unwilling to actually discuss this matter, only to force your personal beliefs about the situation onto others, and therefore should never have posted it in the first place. If you're not going to do me the polite favour of at least responding to some of the questions I've opted to raise for discussion, don't expect another post from me - because I'm not interested in ranting to a wall anymore, but I am interested in maintaining a discussion.

EDIT: I'll give you plenty time. I'm honestly too tired to maintain this debate at this point, since it's been going three hours and I'm pretty sure I've been putting far more effort and thought into this thing, and this is -after- working a full day and all today. If I do respond, it'll be tomorrow sometime.

This post has been edited by Garlyle: Feb 7 2011, 11:00 AM

[Ryuga]

I'll bring to effect sparrows favourite - OCCAMS RAZOR

why dont you provide a possible explanation for all 10 points and sub-points in the OP

then we will see which answer is the simplest and makes the least assumptions....

because all of them can be answered with 1 key fact - they were in some way responsible for maddies death.

this is a position that makes 1 assumption.

so yea - go against all 10 points - making one assumption or less,
or see the error of what you say.

I'm no expert on Occam's razor, but I'm sure this is a misapplication.

For one, your position is not making 1 assumption. You make 1 conclusion, based on assumptions.

If we follow Occam's razor, I will concede the point that the parents may have hid the body, modified the crime scene and whatnot, but at no poiint does is it narrow the possibility to, they were responsible for the girls death.

But, from what I read, your arguement is, the only way this makes sense is if the parents killed the girl and are trying to hide it.
Garlyle made a brought up the possibilty that they were not involved in the girl's death, but are still trying to hide it, out of social fears.

From what I see, both of these are 1 assumption.

[Sparrowsmith]

Ryuga's right, as is Garlyle.

Occam's razor only counts when the evidence is EQUAL. All evidence here is circumstantial, disputable, and problematic.
The sniffer dogs, the deception, the statistics, they are all as fallible as the 'eye witness' statements in the film 'Twelve Angry Men' watch it any you WILL know what reasonable doubt is.

I'm afraid most people suffer from MAS or Male Answer Syndrome (even women, but the phrase is coined as MAS) which basically means people prefer an answer even if the evidence barely supports it.
It's a split either way. Most people think Maddie was either killed by the parents, or kidnapped. Very few people are willing to acknowledge alternatives (that have been presented here) or just shrug it off as something we don't know.

Reasonable doubt is just that. I'm saying I don't know. I'm saying either explanation is possible and I am not going to put someone's life on the line because of that, let along two. Furthermore, I won't separate two kids from their parents. I won't risk a 'Flightplan' ending where Maddie is found and we have to take two innocent people out of prison who sue.
If they're murderers, then that's our bad. But I'd rather two murderers go unpunished than two innocent people, a missing child, two children in care, and en entire population still searching for Maddie have their trust betrayed by the justice system.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Personally, I think they probably did something. But I don't know they did, and I'm not gonna risk doing something horribly bad just to satisfy my own hunches.

[theBreadSultan]

Ok perhaps i was a little short with you.

I think one point that has however been overlooked - in terms of we can't say hoe someone would react -
this is true, people do all sorts of things - however -
There were 7 people involved.
all towing the same line, clearly all in on it.

so we - best case scenario - have a child dead by accidental means - someone interacts with the body, there is panic and they decide the best thing to do is to hide the body and claim it is an abduction.

now fair enough - panic can go run away - being in a group can make the panic worse - however it can often, and USUALLY leads to at least one person bringing in a voice of logic.

i would very much doubt that this group of 7 were in a state of panic - why - they were mostly medics - they see and interact with dead bodies as part of their job


i mean TBH it sounds like we may well be of the same opinion.
I do not for a minute claim there is enough evidence to prosecute -
but what is clear to me - is that whatever DID happen -

Maddie was NOT abducted.
now as you state, she may have fallen down the stairs while they were having a 7 way gang-bang dildo party - and simply wanted to hide that secret - or something more sinister.

I do feel however, that owing to the medical background, and the numbers involved, that an "Innocent" explanation for the deception seems to me highly unlikely.

and again i know that behaviour after the event does not count for much - especially in a court of law,
but i find it hard to imagine that, were she missing,
that not one of the adults would have looked around outside,