Madeleine McCann

[Rincewind]

There are however people who have knowledge/skills/degrees/experience in feilds that are related to the case. They are not directly involved it is true but they are able to compare investigation techniques to what they have learnt/experienced. For instance there is a vast differencwe betrteen Primay evidence and hearsay Primary evidence is from eye witnesses or objects found at the scene of the crime that links the suspect. Hearsay is what peoples opinions are. Correct me if I am wrong on this. I am sure with all the combinations of skill and knowledge we can come up with a decent theory without actually being involved and without insults aimed at each other

[Yaxx]

point being if i had insider knowledge on this or any ongoing case i wouldn't go onto a football (or any other form of media) to spout off my half baked theories. my professionalism would bar me from doing such a thing

I don't believe I have 'spouted off any half baked theories', merely given an informed opinion (as opposed to a misinformed opinion) on other people's comments and some of what has been reported so far.

You're right, my professionalism does bar me from discussing anything specific, including my particular field of work - which makes it all the more difficult when people like yourself are too ignorant to acknowledge that there may well in fact be people out there that do have more knowledge of the case than themselves. I just so happen to also be a Leicester City season ticket holder and a member of this forum. I came across this particular debate as I was browsing through and felt compelled to address some of the wild innacuracies.

As Thracian said, 'I imagine lots of people on this forum have "inside knowledge" of particular fields, whether it be police work, Leicester City, medical matters, whatever.' Exactly right. So why rubbish somebody when they come forward and openly say so? I'm not seeking kudos or brownie points, nor do I have an ego problem. But yes I do have a thorough and comprehensive working knowledge of police and evidential procedures; yes I do have a professional interest in this case; and yes I am privvy to certain information that isn't public knowledge. Is that so hard to comprehend? Does it make you feel sadly inadequate in some way?

I don't profess to have a particular opinion on the McCanns' innocence or guilt. But put yourself in their position for a moment. If you felt that the police investigation into the possible abduction of your daughter was being badly mishandled, and that in fact you were now being (in your view) wrongly accused of murdering or accidentally killing your own daughter - what would you do? Would you sit on your arse and let your whole world collapse around your ears? Or would you do everything you conceivably could to defend yourself and clear your name? If it was the latter, how exactly do you think that you would go about that?

I'll leave you to ponder.

[stez]

I don't believe I have 'spouted off any half baked theories', merely given an informed opinion (as opposed to a misinformed opinion) on other people's comments and some of what has been reported so far.

You're right, my professionalism does bar me from discussing anything specific, including my particular field of work - which makes it all the more difficult when people like yourself are too ignorant to acknowledge that there may well in fact be people out there that do have more knowledge of the case than themselves. I just so happen to also be a Leicester City season ticket holder and a member of this forum. I came across this particular debate as I was browsing through and felt compelled to address some of the wild innacuracies.

As Thracian said, 'I imagine lots of people on this forum have "inside knowledge" of particular fields, whether it be police work, Leicester City, medical matters, whatever.' Exactly right. So why rubbish somebody when they come forward and openly say so? I'm not seeking kudos or brownie points, nor do I have an ego problem. But yes I do have a thorough and comprehensive working knowledge of police and evidential procedures; yes I do have a professional interest in this case; and yes I am privvy to certain information that isn't public knowledge. Is that so hard to comprehend? Does it make you feel sadly inadequate in some way?

I don't profess to have a particular opinion on the McCanns' innocence or guilt. But put yourself in their position for a moment. If you felt that the police investigation into the possible abduction of your daughter was being badly mishandled, and that in fact you were now being (in your view) wrongly accused of murdering or accidentally killing your own daughter - what would you do? Would you sit on your arse and let your whole world collapse around your ears? Or would you do everything you conceivably could to defend yourself and clear your name? If it was the latter, how exactly do you think that you would go about that?

I'll leave you to ponder.

i feel in no way inadequate, just i wouldn't be comfortable commenting on things such as this.

[Stuliasz]

I don't believe I have 'spouted off any half baked theories', merely given an informed opinion (as opposed to a misinformed opinion) on other people's comments and some of what has been reported so far.

You're right, my professionalism does bar me from discussing anything specific, including my particular field of work - which makes it all the more difficult when people like yourself are too ignorant to acknowledge that there may well in fact be people out there that do have more knowledge of the case than themselves. I just so happen to also be a Leicester City season ticket holder and a member of this forum. I came across this particular debate as I was browsing through and felt compelled to address some of the wild innacuracies.

As Thracian said, 'I imagine lots of people on this forum have "inside knowledge" of particular fields, whether it be police work, Leicester City, medical matters, whatever.' Exactly right. So why rubbish somebody when they come forward and openly say so? I'm not seeking kudos or brownie points, nor do I have an ego problem. But yes I do have a thorough and comprehensive working knowledge of police and evidential procedures; yes I do have a professional interest in this case; and yes I am privvy to certain information that isn't public knowledge. Is that so hard to comprehend? Does it make you feel sadly inadequate in some way?

I don't profess to have a particular opinion on the McCanns' innocence or guilt. But put yourself in their position for a moment. If you felt that the police investigation into the possible abduction of your daughter was being badly mishandled, and that in fact you were now being (in your view) wrongly accused of murdering or accidentally killing your own daughter - what would you do? Would you sit on your arse and let your whole world collapse around your ears? Or would you do everything you conceivably could to defend yourself and clear your name? If it was the latter, how exactly do you think that you would go about that?

I'll leave you to ponder.

I wouldn't fret about it too much...many people's way of thinking has been corrupted by the Transfer Talk forum and now they don't believe a word that anyone says about anything after all the false 'HE WILL SIGN' topics.

[Kent Fox]

I don't believe I have 'spouted off any half baked theories', merely given an informed opinion (as opposed to a misinformed opinion) on other people's comments and some of what has been reported so far.

You're right, my professionalism does bar me from discussing anything specific, including my particular field of work - which makes it all the more difficult when people like yourself are too ignorant to acknowledge that there may well in fact be people out there that do have more knowledge of the case than themselves. I just so happen to also be a Leicester City season ticket holder and a member of this forum. I came across this particular debate as I was browsing through and felt compelled to address some of the wild innacuracies.

You, therefore, work for MI5 or similar, as I can't think of any professions one could not dicuss.

If this is so, I need a job right now. I am very good at following people and will happily sit a car for 3 weeks ready to take one photo.

Can I have a job, please?

[filbertway]

I assume yaxx is chandler?

[l444ry]

I'm sorry, that report really is drivel - the reporter should be ashamed of himself. Then again, it is 'The People'.

For a start any crime reporter worth his salt would know that 'Britain's FBI', the Serious & Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) is not currently fit for purpose. I doubt very much they would be offering much 'guidance'.

Also this talk of email and phone intercepts, 24hr surveillance etc really is nonsense. The amount of resources required for this to be done covertly, or even overtly for that matter, is likely to be way beyond the scale of this enquiry. And what would be the point of putting the McCanns under surveilllance anyway, when their every move is monitored and scrutinised 24/7 by the media?? Ludicrous.

British police involved almost from the beginning?? I don't think so. The investigation wouldn't be this kind of shambles that's for sure.

Inspector Yaxx. A couple of weeks ago you attempted to ridicule the highlighted section above. It seems this story will not go away (see the link below). As the Portuguese media seem to be days or weeks ahead of ours and seemingly correct time and again, what do you now think to this accusation and why does it not go away?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...C-mostviewedbox

Edited 18 September 2007 by l444ry

[Yaxx]

Inspector Yaxx. A couple of weeks ago you attempted to ridicule the highlighted section above. It seems this story will not go away (see the link below). As the Portuguese media seem to be days or weeks ahead of ours and seemingly correct time and again, what do you now think to this accusation and why does it not go away?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...C-mostviewedbox

'Days or weeks ahead of ours' - telling us what exactly? Rumour, half-truths, speculation, or perhaps quoting Alipio Ribeiro of the Judicial Police when he said "we can't say with certainty whether the blood came from person A or person B"

'Seemingly correct time and time again' - in what?

'The McCanns have been monitored by satellite since May 3, the night Madeleine went missing' - Monitored by satellite?? How? Visually? I don't think so. Multi-billion dolllar spy satellites are put to rather more important use. And since when, would you suggest, has Portugal been given access to that kind of surveillance by the US? Oh, perhaps you mean satellite surveillance of their mobile phones? Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that...and as if GCHQ hasn't got anything better to do anyway.

'Every move that the couple and their friends have taken has allegedly been observed using telephone triangulation' - Well that's not difficult, er unless the phone's switched off. But why bother? The media knows where they are 24/7!

'UK sources have conceded that the McCanns have been under surveillance, with phones and emails tracked, but it is not known how detailed the monitoring has been' - no I bet it's not! I've already covered the phones, and email tracking? Sounds easy doesn't it? But it isn't and would require resources outside of those readily available to police forces.

I'm sorry...what was your point again??

[l444ry]

'Days or weeks ahead of ours' - telling us what exactly? Rumour, half-truths, speculation, or perhaps quoting Alipio Ribeiro of the Judicial Police when he said "we can't say with certainty whether the blood came from person A or person B"

'Seemingly correct time and time again' - in what?

'The McCanns have been monitored by satellite since May 3, the night Madeleine went missing' - Monitored by satellite?? How? Visually? I don't think so. Multi-billion dolllar spy satellites are put to rather more important use. And since when, would you suggest, has Portugal been given access to that kind of surveillance by the US? Oh, perhaps you mean satellite surveillance of their mobile phones? Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that...and as if GCHQ hasn't got anything better to do anyway.

'Every move that the couple and their friends have taken has allegedly been observed using telephone triangulation' - Well that's not difficult, er unless the phone's switched off. But why bother? The media knows where they are 24/7!

'UK sources have conceded that the McCanns have been under surveillance, with phones and emails tracked, but it is not known how detailed the monitoring has been' - no I bet it's not! I've already covered the phones, and email tracking? Sounds easy doesn't it? But it isn't and would require resources outside of those readily available to police forces.

I'm sorry...what was your point again??

Good question. I know you disagree with what these sources have to say, but my question was-: Why do you think this story continues to be aired? And why doesn't the McCann publicity machine have anything to say about them, considering that they seem to feel the need to be commenting on everything else?

When it first surfaced you shot the messenger and claimed that the People newspaper was a rag. Now it reappears in the Telegraph. Maybe you think that is a rag too. Anyway, just thought you might have something interesting to say about it. I didn't think you'd need to get so defensive over a reasonable question.

[Yaxx]

Good question. I know you disagree with what these sources have to say, but my question was-: Why do you think this story continues to be aired? And why doesn't the McCann publicity machine have anything to say about them, considering that they seem to feel the need to be commenting on everything else?

When it first surfaced you shot the messenger and claimed that the People newspaper was a rag. Now it reappears in the Telegraph. Maybe you think that is a rag too. Anyway, just thought you might have something interesting to say about it. I didn't think you'd need to get so defensive over a reasonable question.

To be fair the article in The Telegraph was summarising the claims rather than pedling them. I can't speak for the McCanns or their publicity machine, as you put it, but most likely they see them as irrelevant and not worth commenting on - which is right to be honest. It's just plain silly. The speculation surrounding the DNA analysis, or her state of mind for example, is potentially far more damaging to their case and reputation.

I'm sure as time goes on the McCanns will have plenty more to say. They have been hit with a raft of accusations and alleged 'evidence' and pretty much subjected to trial by media. I imagine that their priority is to formulate a coherent defence strategy, in case they are charged, rather than pick a fight with the press. This all takes time.

I think the stories continue to be aired out of pure sensationalism. The whole thing becomes self-perpetuating nonsense along with much of what else has been reported. Yes I do disagree with a lot what these alleged 'sources' say, but I doubt I'm alone in that. And anyone with a modicum of common sense should really be able to see it for the crap that it is, or at least retain a rather more open mind. There are at least some places where you'll find some semblance of balanced reporting, like The Times for instance.

[Chandler]

I assume yaxx is chandler?

I maybe many things but I can assure you that I am not, have never been and never will be a 'Yaxx'. I only resort to an alias when I have been unfairly treated by the mods. No such complaint is outstanding at present.

I can't say that I am terribly impressed by the McCanns, but there again, I have a set against the medical profession generally. It seems that a lot of people on here don't care for them much either. However, unlike many of my fellow McCannophobes, I find it much easier to put my prejudices to one side when trying to make sense of a case like this.

Having examined this matter from every which way (this includes, amongst other things, timelining every report on the case over the last 140 days) I can only conclude that hate them or loathe them Kate and Gerry McCann were not responsible in any way for their daughter's disappearance and possible death. They are completely innocent.

Worse, there is evidence to suggest that they are being framed by the Portuguese authorities.

[Webbo]

Worse, there is evidence to suggest that they are being framed by the Portuguese authorities.

It's possible that lazy, incompetent policemen, under pressure to get a result have convinced themselves that the McCanns are guilty and are trying to prove it, by fair means or foul. Things like this must happen in every country, it's certainly happened here.

However, suggesting the Portuguese authorities are trying to frame them is just silly.

[Zingari]

not sure that the portuguese way of interrogating suspects gives rise to much confidence

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

[Chandler]

It's possible that lazy, incompetent policemen, under pressure to get a result have convinced themselves that the McCanns are guilty and are trying to prove it, by fair means or foul. Things like this must happen in every country, it's certainly happened here.

However, suggesting the Portuguese authorities are trying to frame them is just silly.

Instead of jumping in with both feet Futter and describing me as 'silly' for suggesting that the Portuguese authorities are trying to frame the McCanns why don't you instead ask me what evidence I have for making such an accusation? Incuriousity is the midwife of ignorance...

You might also enquire exactly who the lady is pictured immediately after your last post and what relevance she has to the McCann case.

[Thracian]

Yes but it is a football forum Thrach.

[Webbo]

You might also enquire exactly who the lady is pictured immediately after your last post and what relevance she has to the McCann case.

I am aware of the story zinger posted. I think it proves my theory just as much as yours.

why don't you instead ask me what evidence I have for making such an accusation?

Because you'd probably tell me.

[Chandler]

I am absolutely overwhelmed by the desire on this forum to find out about why Madeleine McCann might have been taken. But let's focus on the the positives. Mr Zingari has very intelligently posted a photo of one Leonor Cipriano (don't all rush to google at once lads - just mouth off amongst yourselves).

Leonor's nine year old daughter Joana went missing three years ago and hasn't been seen since. Her mother reported her as missing to the police. After giving her the makeover pictured above, Portugal's finest charged Mrs Cipriano with her murder. Apparently Leonor had 'discovered' that her own brother (Joana's uncle) was having an incestuous relationship with her so she decided to silence her daughter by feeding her to the pigs (you couldn't make it up could you?). Leonor and bro are currently serving 16 years.

So how's this relevant to Maddie McCann? Well it happened in a village just a couple of hours on foot from Praia da Luz.

Oh, and another thing, it was a Goncalo Amaral who generously supplied Leonor's makeover (along with four others whom Mrs Cipriano couldn't identify - he's in court on charges relating to his handiwork in a couple of weeks - it'll be interesting to see how he gets on).

Now, if someone was to tell you that the same Senor Amaral also happened to be the joint senior investigating officer at Portimao investigating the Madeleine McCann disappearance...

what would your reaction be (hold on my friends it gets much darker than this)?

Edited 20 September 2007 by Chandler

[Daggers]

Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry

This could be a case for Mulder and Scully

[Fez of Mahrez]

I am absolutely overwhelmed by the desire on this forum to find out about why Madeleine McCann might have been taken. But let's focus on the the positives. Mr Zingari has very intelligently posted a photo of one Leonor Cipriano (don't all rush to google at once lads - just mouth off amongst yourselves).

Leonor's nine year old daughter Joana went missing three years ago and hasn't been seen since. Her mother reported her as missing to the police. After giving her the makeover pictured above, Portugal's finest charged Mrs Cipriano with her murder. Apparently Leonor had 'discovered' that her own brother (Joana's uncle) was having an incestuous relationship with her so she decided to silence her daughter by feeding her to the pigs (you couldn't make it up could you?). Leonor and bro are currently serving 16 years.

So how's this relevant to Maddie McCann? Well it happened in a village just a couple of hours on foot from Praia da Luz.

Oh, and another thing, it was a Goncalo Amaral who generously supplied Leonor's makeover (along with four others whom Mrs Cipriano couldn't identify - he's in court on charges relating to his handiwork in a couple of weeks - it'll be interesting to see how he gets on).

Now, if someone was to tell you that the same Senor Amaral also happened to be the joint senior investigating officer at Portimao investigating the Madeleine McCann disappearance...

what would your reaction be (hold on my friends it gets much darker than this)?

I have paid virtually no attention to any of this case and I still knew all of that!

[Chandler]

All very well 'knowing all that' but doesn't it make you think Archbishop? Didn't it make you think that something is not quite right here? So here's something else you may know a bit about...

A few days after Maddie's disappearance a representative of a UN sponsored charity operating out of Switzerland (Innocence in Danger) was interviewed on BBC Radio Five Live. She mentioned that her charity had been called in to investigate a number of child abductions in Portugal by distraught relatives. However, whenever, they made approaches to the police or the criminal justice department they were met with a wall of silence.

Worse, they also started to receive anonymous threats and advised to leave the country.

Innocence in Danger is now of the opinion that Portugal has one of the worst unsolved child abduction records in Europe. Which is interesting because the country touts itself as the safest place on the continent to bring children

Now, Archbishop you might be thinking 'tourism $' and you'd be right. But why do the Portuguese authorities need to reassure their guests in such an ostentatious way?

You don't think they might be trying to cover up a rather nasty and very public episode do you?

[Chandler]

OK my last post on the McCann case tonight. All hard facts. The informed speculation comes tomorrow (there's an horrific logic to it that makes even the most strident McCann bashers go ashen).

Most people of a certain age here know all about Barnardo's - the childen's home for unwanted children founded during the 19th century by the venerable doctor of the same name. Well, Portugal has an even older and larger institution called 'Casa Pia' ('House of Hope'). Up until five years ago it had a public reputation to equal that of Barnardo's. But then an almighty child abuse scandal broke - and this one went all the way up to the top.

It appears that deaf and dumb children (and others) at the orphange had been ritually abused over several decades by journalists, civil servants and politicians. Some had even been taken to Casa Pia specifically for that purpose (they were even examined for venereal disease by doctors prior to abuse). You could not even to begin to imagine the sense of shock in a deeply conservative and religious country like Portugal.

The more savvy Portuguese citizens though began to ask questions. How had this been allowed to go on for so long? Were there other abusers involved who had got away? And was the expose a genuine journalistic scoop or was it some sort of blackmailer's coup?

If it was the latter why had the abusers been protected for so long and why was the carpet pulled out from underneath them? What had they done 'wrong?' Were there any parallels with what had happened in Belgium a few years earlier?

Was there a Portuguese Marc Detroux?

Edited 20 September 2007 by Chandler

[Daggers]

[David O'Leary]

:laugh: good'un

Edited 23 September 2007 by foxesneverquit

[Bluefoxtim]

My cat dissapeared 2 years ago, don't know where she went or what has happened to her.

I have been thinking about setting up a fund...

[Phube]

Probably why he's a former member of the CID.

Just to answer a week old question.

Because he was 58 and had cancer!