Madeline McCann - Crimewatch appeal

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

The police re-open investigations all of the time when new evidence comes to light.

 

There are countless ongoing investigations going on at any given time that we do not hear about. It is an unsolved case.

 

Just because it happened a long time ago doesn't mean that the police simply close the file.

 

What about it do you see as being treated as special? Crimewatch always has unsolved cases from years ago when new evidence comes up.

If it was just the police I would agree with you.

 

The fact that Cameron, amongst others, has been "lobbied" about this fiasco and the media will report their every whim? Pardon my fecking cynicism.

[TheMaganator]

So if you feel the McCanns were treated so fairly then where were social services to remove their other children from their care after an act (actually several of them) of gross negligence that led to their daughter being stolen?

 

Im not implying that the parents are guilty of anything other than neglect.

Theres just a lot doesnt add up here though. I am sure the Police will be doing their upmost though and they have people far more specialised in child abduction than any of us are.

Ive seen people making rediculous accusations about how the McCanns done this and done that. I just think theyre incrediably stupid. I'd never leave my kids alone so I could go out to get tanked up and have a laugh with my mates, even worse is the revelation that there was a bloody night creche!!! Surely their doctors wages could have stretched enough to cover the cost of a baby sitter at least! Most hotels and resorts these days offer a baby listening service.

 

They were investigated for neglect at the time.

[TheMaganator]

If it was just the police I would agree with you.

 

The fact that Cameron, amongst others, has been "lobbied" about this fiasco and the media will report their every whim? Pardon my fecking cynicism.

Then blame the nation for being intrested in it - the papers wouldn't publish what people dont want to read.

[Sten Guns]

 

I want it to be stopped being treated as some sort of special case.

 

Why? What difference does it make to an Australian citizen?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Why? What difference does it make to an Australian citizen?

 

When it affects my parochial news coverage and I can't find out which group of bikies has been shooting each other, then it makes a difference.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Then blame the nation for being intrested in it - the papers wouldn't publish what people dont want to read.

 

I agree there is a vicious circle there. The McCanns are so Marmite that people will take sides.

[GuitarJambo]

They were investigated for neglect at the time.

 

Didnt know that, I apologise.w

 

What was the outcome?

[Paolo]

 

 

So if you feel the McCanns were treated so fairly then where were social services to remove their other children from their care after an act (actually several of them) of gross negligence that led to their daughter being stolen?

 

Im not implying that the parents are guilty of anything other than neglect.

Theres just a lot doesnt add up here though. I am sure the Police will be doing their upmost though and they have people far more specialised in child abduction than any of us are.

Ive seen people making rediculous accusations about how the McCanns done this and done that. I just think theyre incrediably stupid. I'd never leave my kids alone so I could go out to get tanked up and have a laugh with my mates, even worse is the revelation that there was a bloody night creche!!! Surely their doctors wages could have stretched enough to cover the cost of a baby sitter at least! Most hotels and resorts these days offer a baby listening service.

 

The hotel did offer a nanny service for a charge. As for the cr?che, it was free, I think it was said last night.

[Paolo]

 

 

Didnt know that, I apologise.w

 

What was the outcome?

 

I don't recall there being one.

[GuitarJambo]

The hotel did offer a nanny service for a charge. As for the cr?che, it was free, I think it was said last night.

 

My point exactly.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

One thing I found weird last night was the lack of attention given to the crime scene (the apartment). No talk at all of DNA, fibres, how the window was opened, whether it was damaged or showed any scuff marks, whether anyone heard anything. With the exception of the efits, all they seemed to be doing was piecing a shaky timeline together. I don't get it.

[Paolo]

One thing I found weird last night was the lack of attention given to the crime scene (the apartment). No talk at all of DNA, fibres, how the window was opened, whether it was damaged or showed any scuff marks, whether anyone heard anything. With the exception of the efits, all they seemed to be doing was piecing a shaky timeline together. I don't get it.

 

Nor was the blood spots found in the hire car, or the fact the Irish couple that were mentioned initially identified Gerry McCann as the man they saw.

 

Neither points to his/their guilt or that they are implicated (more evidnece will be needed), and they both could be red herrings - but they could be relevant. I certainly think they should have been mentioned, and it is uncomfortable that it seems selective information was given out last night.

 

Please do not read this as me accusing anyone of anything (I am not), but for me the reconstruction and the 'new information' appears to be trying to prove the McCann's innocence rather than someone's guilt (yet you do not prove innocence) and I do not think that is the way to do it. It could just be my uncomfort that is making me think this though.

 

It could be, as others have said though, that the police know more than disclosed and this is part of the game plan, in order to close in on the suspect.

[Rocco_Jambo]

One thing I found weird last night was the lack of attention given to the crime scene (the apartment). No talk at all of DNA, fibres, how the window was opened, whether it was damaged or showed any scuff marks, whether anyone heard anything. With the exception of the efits, all they seemed to be doing was piecing a shaky timeline together. I don't get it.

 

Too much CSI for you. What do you want them to say about DNA or fibres if they don't have any leads?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Too much CSI for you. What do you want them to say about DNA or fibres if they don't have any leads?

 

I'd like them to explain how Madeleine was taken. Really shouldn't be too difficult.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Onto the Daily Mail, sick minds they're dealing with:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460017/Twitter-trolls-attack-McCanns-sick-messages.html

 

Is that Clarence Seedorf guy still the McCann's spokesman or did he get fed up with it all in the end?

[Paolo]

Onto the Daily Mail, sick minds they're dealing with:

 

http://www.dailymail...k-messages.html

 

Is that Clarence Seedorf guy still the McCann's spokesman or did he get fed up with it all in the end?

 

That is out of order, regardless of your thoughts on the case.

 

The point about prosecuting them, though, are perhaps valid (depending on how it is raised and discussed), and it possibly would have happened to other couples.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

That is out of order, regardless of your thoughts on the case.

 

The point about prosecuting them, though, are perhaps valid (depending on how it is raised and discussed), and it possibly would have happened to other couples.

 

I might just point out that Paul Dacre said in his Guardian epic on Saturday that Twitter is an irrelevance. Except when it suits, obviously.

[Rocco_Jambo]

 

 

I'd like them to explain how Madeleine was taken. Really shouldn't be too difficult.

 

I think it is. 6 years on and the leads they are investigating involve vague efits relating to a man carrying a sleeping child would make you think they don't know how she was taken.

[Peebo]

For some reason, for the second day in a row, this is a headline story on the Today show- the US equivalent of GMTV or similar.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I think it is. 6 years on and the leads they are investigating involve vague efits relating to a man carrying a sleeping child would make you think they don't know how she was taken.

 

What I mean is that (as far as I'm aware) the only evidence of any kidnapping was the absence of a child. That sounds obvious enough but they seem to be talking about an apartment with absolutely no sign of a break-in or anything like that. I get that the window was open but seeing as it was originally shut, how did it open? Was it forced or what?

 

Sorry if this comes across all CSI but it seemed bizarre to me that in the timeline of everything that happened, Crimewatch didn't touch once on a realistic theory for how the abduction took place.

 

To use an analogy, if someone was found dead in a pristine car, would the police accept that they'd died in a car crash?

[Boris]

Then blame the nation for being intrested in it - the papers wouldn't publish what people dont want to read.

 

[TheMaganator]

*what their readers don't want to read

[Boris]

*what their readers don't want to read

 

"The public want what the public get...."

[Sexton Hardcastle]

I don't get them airing this on national tv to try and target the hundered or so British nationals that were in the area at the time.

 

Fair enough extensive coverage but surley they could have and should have the details of those in the area at the time and be interviewing them 1:1 rather than asking these people to call crimewatch to report any suspicions.

 

Seems odd to me.

[Rocco_Jambo]

What I mean is that (as far as I'm aware) the only evidence of any kidnapping was the absence of a child. That sounds obvious enough but they seem to be talking about an apartment with absolutely no sign of a break-in or anything like that. I get that the window was open but seeing as it was originally shut, how did it open? Was it forced or what?

 

Sorry if this comes across all CSI but it seemed bizarre to me that in the timeline of everything that happened, Crimewatch didn't touch once on a realistic theory for how the abduction took place.

 

To use an analogy, if someone was found dead in a pristine car, would the police accept that they'd died in a car crash?

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of an abduction though in the same way there is no evidence of an accidental death. Anything would just be a hypothetical theory which wouldn't really serve the purpose (from the polices perspective) the show was for to trigger memories or track down any of the people seen at the time by witnesses. It was a hotel room there was probably dozens of unidentified DNA and fibres which without a context would be meaningless.

[TheMaganator]

I don't get them airing this on national tv to try and target the hundered or so British nationals that were in the area at the time.

 

Fair enough extensive coverage but surley they could have and should have the details of those in the area at the time and be interviewing them 1:1 rather than asking these people to call crimewatch to report any suspicions.

 

Seems odd to me.

You're assuming the Portuguese police did their job properly in the first place, no? & that they had all the details of the other tourists there.

 

Also, the police are only now getting the records of the phone calls made at the time. Don't know why that's taken so long...

 

I think the national tv thing was tactical to either smoke the baddy out or jog memories.

[doctor jambo]

A few things need clarified

1- the "pre planned abduction theory"- hogswash. They took the 4 year old who would be harder to get out than the one year old. They managed to pass a sleeping 4 year old through a window to someone outside without waking her up, then escaped without being seen. If it was preplanned why would you walk to freedom with a child that may wake up instead of jumping into a car (the Mccanns apartment was abbutting a car park). why go out through a window when a big sliding door was open? Can you pass a child (and an adult has to get in and out) through the window without ANY fibres/marks/DNA on the window (the simple answer is that this is very unlikely. For all this to work you are dealing with a very nimble person who has knocked Maddie unconsious ( very hard to do) and got her and himself out through a window and he, the girl and acomplice away without being found. As for the " he may have still been in the room when Mrs was there- what about the second guy who would have had to have been outside the window to catch the child?

2- burglary gone wrong- utter guff. Burglars steal - not abduct children. Burglars that are disturbed during a raid run for it. Nearly all are after cash for drugs, not lifting toddlers then running off with them. Even if there was a burgalr in all likelihood he would have legged it, or if a total rocket- have killed Maddie on the spot then legged it as taking the body with you slows you down . In addition there is a "psychological barrier" that limits how far most people can travel with a body before they bottle it- most people its not at all.

 

My issue with the whole thing is that if ?5million of tax payer cash and ?3million of "charity" buys you that amount of supposition and nonsense, then we really have to look at how poor our Met really is - I sould have cobbled that together in 2 minutes, with just as much "evidence".

And the "man seen carrying sleeping child at night in holiday resort"- done it myself dozens of times with my own kids after long days out (with me I hasten to add)

[Seglespaan]

It's likely that only very few people will ever really know what happened that night. I only watched the first part of the Crime watch last night but it seemed very very strange.

 

The information being given out seemed very selective and Kate & Gerry's reconstruction of events just didn't seem right at all. They said that the twins had woken the previous night and asked where their mummy n daddy were when they woke up crying. They then went on to say that after that they made a mental note to check the kids more often. What? They actually seemed to think that this was the normal response that any parent would make. What?

 

The whole time Kate talked through the reconstruction she never once mentioned that she shouldn't have left her children. I didn't watch the whole show but there's been mentions that the McCanns don't want to riddle themselves with guilt any longer. But to never mention you were at fault? If my neglect had caused my son to be kidnapped (if that's what happened) I don't think I could talk through the events without blaming myself.

 

Kate also said that when she went to check the kids, she basically walked into the apartment and closed the kids bedroom door. Without even looking in it. Had it not been for a gust of wind she wouldn't have bothered looking in it. WHAT? She never bothered to actually check the kids despite that being the only reason she was in the room was to check them.

 

Then apparently she left the two remaining kids and went to get help. WHAT THE *****?

 

None of this makes any sense.

[TheMaganator]

Dr Jambo - what's to say they didn't carry her out the sliding door?

 

Why would they need a car? They could have carried her to a beach & left on a small boat.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

My issue with the whole thing is that if ?5million of tax payer cash and ?3million of "charity" buys you that amount of supposition and nonsense, then we really have to look at how poor our Met really is - I could have cobbled that together in 2 minutes, with just as much "evidence".

 

This is my view too.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

It annoys me as well, the media and the met have been quite clear that the Johnny Foreigner police have made an arse of this.

 

That may well be the case, but are we to believe the police here are any better ffs. Only today this whole plebgate nonsense has shown the police up to be liars again and let's not even mention hilsborough.

 

Or Jean Charles De Menezes or any of the other cases in which the elite boys and girls from the Met have looked like clowns.

[TheMaganator]

It's likely that only very few people will ever really know what happened that night. I only watched the first part of the Crime watch last night but it seemed very very strange.

 

The information being given out seemed very selective and Kate & Gerry's reconstruction of events just didn't seem right at all. They said that the twins had woken the previous night and asked where their mummy n daddy were when they woke up crying. They then went on to say that after that they made a mental note to check the kids more often. What? They actually seemed to think that this was the normal response that any parent would make. What?

 

The whole time Kate talked through the reconstruction she never once mentioned that she shouldn't have left her children. I didn't watch the whole show but there's been mentions that the McCanns don't want to riddle themselves with guilt any longer. But to never mention you were at fault? If my neglect had caused my son to be kidnapped (if that's what happened) I don't think I could talk through the events without blaming myself. She did talk about her guit & said it stayed with her for 'days, weeks, months, years'.

 

Kate also said that when she went to check the kids, she basically walked into the apartment and closed the kids bedroom door. Without even looking in it. Had it not been for a gust of wind she wouldn't have bothered looking in it. WHAT? She never bothered to actually check the kids despite that being the only reason she was in the room was to check them. I don't think this is odd - if there was no noise coming from the room you'd assume all was well. Nobody expects their kids to not be in their beds. In saying that, I probably would have stuck my gead around the door.

 

Then apparently she left the two remaining kids and went to get help. WHAT THE *****? Panic. Who knows what you would do.

 

None of this makes any sense.

[doctor jambo]

Dr Jambo - what's to say they didn't carry her out the sliding door?

 

Why would they need a car? They could have carried her to a beach & left on a small boat.

 

The windows had been opened and the shutters raised. Unless having broken into the place through the window the abductor suddenly thinks- "maybe I'll try the door now I've busted my way in! It's open DOH!"

Why would you walk with a sleeping/unconscious/dead child through a holiday resort at 10pm (when lets face it people are either returning home after dinner or heading out on the raz_ and risk being seen/child waking up, all hell breaking loose as parents discover missing child. What then for the abdictors? Paddle for Malta? Board your submarine for paedophile land?

So what we are saying is that we have an abductor with severe learning diffiuclties and a love of the sea who has managed to leave no trace of themselves adn evade justice for 6 years.

OK then

[redm]

I'm on a phone and can't be arsed typing properly but there's some stuff I want to add:

 

- British police cannot prosecute someone for a 'crime' committed in another country. It had to be Portuguese police who pursued any negligence claim.

- From what I've read it's unclear whether or not this situation (leaving the kids in apartment) would be considered an offence in either the UK or in Portugal anyway. Suggestions are that it most likely wouldn't.

- This stuff about how they should have their kids taken away is a nonsense. Regardless of whether they're from Newcastle, Westerhailes or Kensington, no parents with absence of any previous issues would have their kids taken away for leaving them sleeping and unsupervised nearby with regular checks. I'd love to see any evidence to the contrary - just isn't going to happen.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The windows had been opened and the shutters raised. Unless having broken into the place through the window the abductor suddenly thinks- "maybe I'll try the door now I've busted my way in! It's open DOH!"

Why would you walk with a sleeping/unconscious/dead child through a holiday resort at 10pm (when lets face it people are either returning home after dinner or heading out on the raz_ and risk being seen/child waking up, all hell breaking loose as parents discover missing child. What then for the abdictors? Paddle for Malta? Board your submarine for paedophile land?

So what we are saying is that we have an abductor with severe learning diffiuclties and a love of the sea who has managed to leave no trace of themselves adn evade justice for 6 years.

OK then

 

It's possible that the door could have been opened from the inside. But isn't this what the police should be working out?

[doctor jambo]

It's possible that the door could have been opened from the inside. But isn't this what the police should be working out?

 

Indeed- and they have failed to do so. They have singularly failed to provide any explanation that holds any water. And no amount of shots of billowing curtains and shady figures in the night gets past that.

The programme was swiss cheese

[redm]

Also worth mentioning that Kate McCann is an ambassador for that Missing Kids organisation mentioned earlier and has raised a fair whack of cash for them too. Not really all that important but while so many are going down the "look how evil they are!!11??" line I thought it might be worth chucking in some balance.

 

The press love pantomime baddies, the Daily Wail in particular. And half those blogs/websites online are just full of crap. If I could read an authentic, purely factual review of the case I guess I would take the time to do it. There just isn't one around from what I can tell.

[redm]

doctor jambo - you've been reading that wacko blog haven't you?

 

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Also worth mentioning that Kate McCann is an ambassador for that Missing Kids organisation mentioned earlier and has raised a fair whack of cash for them too. Not really all that important but while so many are going down the "look how evil they are!!11??" line I thought it might be worth chucking in some balance.

 

The press love pantomime baddies, the Daily Wail in particular. And half those blogs/websites online are just full of crap. If I could read an authentic, purely factual review of the case I guess I would take the time to do it. There just isn't one around from what I can tell.

 

None of that means we should just overlook or ignore glaring holes/inconsistencies in the evidence.

 

The police are asking people to remember a guy spotted in the street at 10pm. But they can't provide any evidence that there was an abduction in the first place. Do you see a problem with that?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

It's possible that the door could have been opened from the inside. But isn't this what the police should be working out?

That's what I suggested!

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Indeed- and they have failed to do so. They have singularly failed to provide any explanation that holds any water. And no amount of shots of billowing curtains and shady figures in the night gets past that.

The programme was swiss cheese

What do you think happened then? (If there is a way to present a hypothetical scenario without being defamatory)

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

What do you think happened then? (If there is a way to present a hypothetical scenario without being defamatory)

 

How should we know? What we're saying is that millions of pounds is being spent on this and the police can't (or won't) address basic gaps in the evidence.

[Ulysses]

What do you think happened then? (If there is a way to present a hypothetical scenario without being defamatory)

 

I just thought that now would be a good time to remind members of the warning posted on the thread last night - and also to let you know that some members have been banned since for posting defamatory remarks.

 

Don't take the chance. It's not worth it.

[desmondo]

Ifs and buts and guilt won't help them find Maddie so they have to look forward?

 

If I did that with my kids (which I wouldn't as I'm not a fud at parenting) I'd never look forward. I'd spend my life hating myself knowing that I've lost my child because I didn't offer them the care and security I was responsible for.

Kate says they didn't commit the crime.....ok....you didn't.....but you know that the world is full of despicable people from the ones that rob you to the ones that hurt and kill you. You can't avoid these people 100% of the time so you protect yourself as best you can. You don't leave your phone in the car because you know there might be someone willing to put your window in to get it. You don't deserve to lose your child but your daughter deserved your care and you deemed dinner with friends more important. How the **** do you look past that guilt?

wrong post

[doctor jambo]

How should we know? What we're saying is that millions of pounds is being spent on this and the police can't (or won't) address basic gaps in the evidence.

 

I cannot answer that. Wealthier than me have had to pay out for their opinions, but what can be said is that we are being fed a very one sided agenda driven view of what happened that ignores a lot of the evidence. This is a political game played by the Tories to cosy up to the people who are on the Mccanns side- white, middle class females - oddly enough the Tories target vote. It is a horrible cynical game and the police should really know better than to get involved in such an amateur way

[desmondo]

I'm on a phone and can't be arsed typing properly but there's some stuff I want to add:

 

- British police cannot prosecute someone for a 'crime' committed in another country. It had to be Portuguese police who pursued any negligence claim.

- From what I've read it's unclear whether or not this situation (leaving the kids in apartment) would be considered an offence in either the UK or in Portugal anyway. Suggestions are that it most likely wouldn't.

- This stuff about how they should have their kids taken away is a nonsense. Regardless of whether they're from Newcastle, Westerhailes or Kensington, no parents with absence of any previous issues would have their kids taken away for leaving them sleeping and unsupervised nearby with regular checks. I'd love to see any evidence to the contrary - just isn't going to happen.

You give me the distinct impression that you think its fine and acceptable leaving kids alone

[redm]

None of that means we should just overlook or ignore glaring holes/inconsistencies in the evidence.

 

The police are asking people to remember a guy spotted in the street at 10pm. But they can't provide any evidence that there was an abduction in the first place. Do you see a problem with that?

 

Not in the slightest. I'm just wary of the fact that none of us really know all the facts for sure and an awful lot of the sources from which the details are available are either patchy, incomplete, biased or just plain old crazy person witterings.

 

To go with any of the theories linked to your comment above you kind of have to accept that police are simply dismissing significant evidence and that's just a stretch too far for my old imagination. If you were to look for loopholes or seemingly confusing elements in every single criminal case, plea for info or reconstruction, you'd find them.

[desmondo]

The McCanns will never ever apologise for their self centered behaviour that led to what seems the loss of Madeline. I wonder if they will ever explain away all the cash that was raised. I wonder if they will ever take a like detector test that was once allegedly offered, Ever do a Q&A programme, unlikely but why not, put a lot of doubt to bed But no matter what I hope something good comes out this horrible situation and the sooner the better

[redm]

Indeed- and they have failed to do so. They have singularly failed to provide any explanation that holds any water. And no amount of shots of billowing curtains and shady figures in the night gets past that.

The programme was swiss cheese

Indeed- and they have failed to do so. They have singularly failed to provide any explanation that holds any water. And no amount of shots of billowing curtains and shady figures in the night gets past that.

The programme was swiss cheese

 

How do you know that? You know what they told you last night and nothing more.

They don't need to share all the evidence with the public, they just need to share the bits that might end up being most useful in jogging memories or answering the questions they want answered.

[redm]

I cannot answer that. Wealthier than me have had to pay out for their opinions, but what can be said is that we are being fed a very one sided agenda driven view of what happened that ignores a lot of the evidence. This is a political game played by the Tories to cosy up to the people who are on the Mccanns side- white, middle class females - oddly enough the Tories target vote. It is a horrible cynical game and the police should really know better than to get involved in such an amateur way

 

 

Come ON. You're pulling our legs here, right?