Can of worms at the ready...and I'll just pop them open!!!

crispybug2

I don't know if it's just me that thought this, but the people on the right of these two pictures......separated at birth???

sloppyschleckonds

Mikey23

There is something about that that couple that I just don't trust. Can't put my finger on it, feel their pain etc etc but I've never thought that they were telling the whole truth. Hope they find the poor maid though...

Stevo_666

Come to think of it, what does T47b look like?

team47b

6ft 7in, 15 stone, bald, artificial leg, nerves of steel, alabaster feet and a knob of butter

You aint seen me right

the playing mantis

Mikey23 wrote:

There is something about that that couple that I just don't trust. Can't put my finger on it, feel their pain etc etc but I've never thought that they were telling the whole truth. Hope they find the poor maid though...

there known swingers, thought that would be right up your street!

sloppyschleckonds

the playing mantis wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

There is something about that that couple that I just don't trust. Can't put my finger on it, feel their pain etc etc but I've never thought that they were telling the whole truth. Hope they find the poor maid though...

there known swingers, thought that would be right up your street!

Does Mikey live in Leicester?

Mikey23

Used to, many moons ago

veronese68

Why isn't some of the time and money spent on this one child spent looking into cases of children that are abducted whilst their parents aren't out on the lash? Can you imagine if a paper put that on the front page?

daviesee

They look too have gotten over it and are quite happy now.

capt_slog

crispybug2 wrote:

I don't know if it's just me that thought this, but the people on the right of these two pictures......separated at birth???

Very similar to what I said to Mrs Slog on the day the photos were published.

But the whole investigation seems odd. I can't remember hearing at the time of anyone carrying a kid in PJs through the streets, has this only come out just now or did I miss it?

GiantMike

Capt Slog wrote:

But the whole investigation seems odd. I can't remember hearing at the time of anyone carrying a kid in PJs through the streets, has this only come out just now or did I miss it?

I think the witness statement was taken at the time, but not followed-up by the Portugeezers.

capt_slog

GiantMike wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

But the whole investigation seems odd. I can't remember hearing at the time of anyone carrying a kid in PJs through the streets, has this only come out just now or did I miss it?

I think the witness statement was taken at the time, but not followed-up by the Portugeezers.

Amazing. Did they just think that was a coincidence? :roll:

team47b

I think it was discounted as evidence at the time because the GNR 'decided' that it didn't fit with 'their' calculated time frame, you can't tell the Portuguese police anything, they are always right, they have guns, you can't argue, end of.

GiantMike

Capt Slog wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

But the whole investigation seems odd. I can't remember hearing at the time of anyone carrying a kid in PJs through the streets, has this only come out just now or did I miss it?

I think the witness statement was taken at the time, but not followed-up by the Portugeezers.

Amazing. Did they just think that was a coincidence? :roll:

I don't think the Portugezers did a particularly thorough job, but that's just based on Met Police reports of it. I think they suspected the parents from the start.

me-109

When that e-fit came out the other day I said to the wife that the guy on the left looked like how I remembered the father looking - without reference to or seeing any more pics of Mr Mc.

GiantMike

Let's face it, if it really was the dad he'd have grown a beard and started wearing glasses the second anybody mentioned photofit. And he probably wouldn't be hounding the Police to re-open the case and probably wouldn't keep it as a high profile campaign in the press. I imagine a killer would want things to quieten down ASAP and stay that way.

graham.

Just been sent this on Facebook...(So it must be true)

100 REASONS WHY THE PARENTS BELONG IN JAIL

1. Did they use the babysitting service provided? NO
2. Did they use any listening devices? NO
3. Did they leave three children under 4 alone while going out drinking? YES
4. Did they do this every night? YES
5. Did they,under British law,endanger Maddie? YES
6. In the UK is significant harm a form of child abuse? YES
7. Is significant harm used by the UK courts in child abuse cases? YES
8. Does leaving the children as they did qualify under these rules ? YES
9. Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie? YES
10. Are the frequent checks by the Tapas group challenged by other witnesses? YES
11. Was the bedroom withing sight of where they sat? NO
12, Were they within earshot? NO
13. Did anyone other than Tanner see any abductor? NO
14. Has anyone come up with a credible abductor? NO
15. Is there any evidence of an abduction? NO
16. Were the shutters in the room tampered with? NO
17. Did Kate say the shutters were tampered with? YES
18. Did Kate change her story to saying the door was unlocked? YES
19. Was the door unlocked on any other night? NO
20. Is there any physical evidence at all of a break in? NO
21. Is there any physical evidence of another party being in the room? NO
23. Were the McCann's told not to inform the media? YES
24. Were they told it might harm the chances of finding Maddie alive? YES
25. Were the media informed by a McCann family member? YES
26. Were specially trained British dogs brought in to search the apartment ? YES
27. Did they find anything? YES
28. Have these dogs been successful in over 200 cases? YES
29. Do sniffer dogs lie? NO
30. Do the specially trained dogs get confused by other smells? NO
31. Did they find cadaver(dead body) scent in the apartment? YES
32. Did they find blood? YES
33. Did they find cadaver scent behind the sofa? YES
34. On the child's toy? YES
35. In a cupboard in the room? YES
36. Did they find cadaver scent on Kate's clothes? YES
37. Did Kate explain this by saying she had examined dead bodies before holiday? YES
38. Is there any record of her doing so? NO
39. Has anyone come forward to say they saw her doing so? NO
40. Was the hire car rented after Maddie disappeared ? YES
41. Were tests done on DNA found in the car? YES
42. Did the dogs alert to the hire car? YES
43. Is a billion to one odds that it may be someone else's DNA? YES
44. Were the doors and boot left open to get rid of the smell in the car? YES
45. Did the parents explain it away as rotting meat? YES
46. Smelling due to taking rubbish to the tip in the hire car? YES
47. Smelling due to dirty nappies in the hire car? YES
48. Smell due to sea bass in the hire car? YES
49. Did the parents say the dogs were wrong? YES
50. Do you need tons of excuses if the dogs are just plain wrong? NO
51. Have the dogs ever been wrong? NO
52. Did Kate & Gerry flee Portugal? YES
53. Did they hire extradition lawyers? YES
54. Did the McCann's hire libel lawyers to gag anyone with a different view? YES
55. Did the government lend spin doctor Clarence Mitchell to the parents? YES
56. Dio spin doctors twist the truth for a favourable outcome? YES
57. Are they paid to do this? YES
58. Did the McCann's set up a fund in order to search for Maddie? YES
59. Did they use the money donated for anything other than searching? YES
60. Do the parents have a media monitoring unit? YES
61. Are there internet trolls helping the parents to quash getting at the truth? YES
62. Have the Portuguese police been portrayed as incompetent? YES
63. Did they look at all aspects of the case? YES
64. Did they conclude any abduction took place? NO
65. Did they conclude that Maddie was dead and the parents responsible? YES
66. Are there two British investigations into Maddie being missing? YES
67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? NO
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? YES
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? NO
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? NO
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? NO
72. Have the parents made millions from Maddie being missing? YES
73. Did Kate write a book mentioning torn genitalia that the twins might read? YES
74. Did Gerry have his wallet stolen at Waterloo station as he claimed? NO
75. Does the CCTV footage from that day bear out his claims? NO
76. Did the Portuguese police ask British government for medical records? YES
77. Were they handed over? NO
78. Did they ask for bank statements? YES
79. Were they handed over ? NO
80. Did they ask for mobile phone records? YES
81. Were they handed over? NO
82. Have the media printed the McCann version of events? YES
83. Are the media intimidated by threats of libel? YES
84. Have the parents admitted they are responsible for Maddie's disappearance? NO
85. Have the parents faced any criminal charges to date? NO
86. No charges for manslaughter? NO
87. For neglect? NO
88. Did the McCann's say they would take a polygraph(lie detector test) ? YES
89. Did the McCann "people" contact Don Cargill head of polygraph studies?YES
90. Did the McCann's tell the world they would take one to prove innocence? YES
91. Have they taken one in the 2'000+ days since saying they would? NO
92. Did the parents impose a list of conditions for taking one? YES
93. Did Don Cargill say the list was "impossible to satisfy"? YES
94. Did Don Cargill state "They had no intention of taking one"? YES
95. Did Clarence Mitchell say they were innocent and did not need to do one? YES
96. IS Amaral on trial because he wrote a book stating the facts of the case? YES
97. Is it a proper account of the police investigation ? YES
98. Have the McCann's fought desperately to have this book banned? YES
99. Is it banned? NO
100. Is maddie missing because of the actions of the parents? YES

SpainSte

Everyone should read the book written by the Portuguese police officer in charge of the investigation, it was banned in the UK following libel action from the McCanns. Very very interesting, especially the part about the sniffer dogs etc.

Very very suspicious.

veronese68

To my mind points 1-3 show that the parents are guilty of neglect at the very least. That leads to point 100 being true whatever else went on.

Pituophis

Seems fairly conclusive to me, and that's not sarcasm.
A professional can twist any information to get it to suit their version of events, but it has always seemed "fishy" from the word go.
What parent would leave even one young child on its own when they went out, to do anything? If it had happened over here, there would have been outrage directed at them!
The child didn't deserve its fate, what ever that may be, but I can't say the same for the parents :evil:

GiantMike

Graham. wrote:

Just been sent this on Facebook...(So it must be true)

100 REASONS WHY THE PARENTS BELONG IN JAIL

1. Did they use the babysitting service provided? NO
.....
100. Is maddie missing because of the actions of the parents? YES

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike Internet Warriors. I have no evidence to support or counter any of the claims made, and I'm guessing the tool that wrote it didn't either.

croptonboy

GiantMike wrote:

Let's face it, if it really was the dad he'd have grown a beard and started wearing glasses the second anybody mentioned photofit. And he probably wouldn't be hounding the Police to re-open the case and probably wouldn't keep it as a high profile campaign in the press. I imagine a killer would want things to quieten down ASAP and stay that way.

That's what they WANT you to think

GiantMike wrote:

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike Internet Warriors. I have no evidence to support or counter any of the claims made, and I'm guessing the tool that wrote it didn't either.

Either way, you'd have to say it was VERY unlikely that had they not left their kids on their own, Maddie would have disappeared...

natrix

What surprises me is that they left the two 18 month old twins unattended in the room :shock:

daviesee

natrix wrote:

What surprises me is that they left the two 18 month old twins unattended in the room :shock:

Comments at the time went along the lines of - Well, everybody does it.
No. They bloody well dont.

GiantMike

Croptonboy wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike Internet Warriors. I have no evidence to support or counter any of the claims made, and I'm guessing the tool that wrote it didn't either.

Either way, you'd have to say it was VERY unlikely that had they not left their kids on their own, Maddie would have disappeared...

Clearly, if the parents had taken it in turns to continually stare at all their children, 24 hours a day, the chance of abduction is significantly reduced. Come to think of it, my car is in the car park and I'm not watching it. Presumably if somebody BREAKS THE LAW and steals it the interwebs will be full of people blaming me for leaving it unattended.

seanoconn

GiantMike wrote:

Croptonboy wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike Internet Warriors. I have no evidence to support or counter any of the claims made, and I'm guessing the tool that wrote it didn't either.

Either way, you'd have to say it was VERY unlikely that had they not left their kids on their own, Maddie would have disappeared...

Clearly, if the parents had taken it in turns to continually stare at all their children, 24 hours a day, the chance of abduction is significantly reduced. Come to think of it, my car is in the car park and I'm not watching it. Presumably if somebody BREAKS THE LAW and steals it the interwebs will be full of people blaming me for leaving it unattended.

I agree with some of your other points Mike but you can't really compare an inanimate object to a child.

The parents were at fault, they know this and will have to live with the guilt.

croptonboy

GiantMike wrote:

Clearly, if the parents had taken it in turns to continually stare at all their children, 24 hours a day, the chance of abduction is significantly reduced. Come to think of it, my car is in the car park and I'm not watching it. Presumably if somebody BREAKS THE LAW and steals it the interwebs will be full of people blaming me for leaving it unattended.

You're comparing a childs life to your car, really???

natrix

I don't think that anybody is seriously suggesting that parents should stay at home with their young children to prevent them being abducted, BUT none of the parents that I know would leave 18 month old children alone in the house (or even a 3 year old for that matter).

Young children can choke on all sorts of things, and if there's nobody there to help they'll most likely die - simples.

goonz

Something just seems fishy about the parents to me.

GiantMike

Croptonboy wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Clearly, if the parents had taken it in turns to continually stare at all their children, 24 hours a day, the chance of abduction is significantly reduced. Come to think of it, my car is in the car park and I'm not watching it. Presumably if somebody BREAKS THE LAW and steals it the interwebs will be full of people blaming me for leaving it unattended.

You're comparing a childs life to your car, really???

Er, yeah. Have you seen my car!

My point was that although the parents could be held to be negligent (I don't know the full details, I don't think anybody does) for leaving them unattended, the crime relies on a third party breaking the law.