Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 detectives trimmed down to 4.probably getting a bit nippy in the med now,wonder if there'll be a new lead about easter time.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 198
|
By:
Surely these 29 dicks can't have been just on this case....can they???
|
|
By:
The only lead they ever got wouldn't even walk a shih Tzu - waste of time and money imo
|
|
By:
there was a bizarre interview with their spokesman clarence doodah,he said the move to 4 detectives from 29 was a positive move cos it would mean the investigation was more focussed.
|
|
By:
I would say that its pretty normal that most people cannot maintain the necessary discipline to give your full attention to a problem. It happens in most jobs.
|
|
By:
how many times must they have been over the evidence or lack of, time to just close down the whole thing, shes never going to found dead or alive
|
|
By:
Its beginning to sound like a detectives holiday junket. Make a few wild goose chases, make a few non commitalstatements about the cases progress - jobs a goodun
|
|
By:
Clarence Mitchell should play Ned Beattys part in the remake of Deliverance...
OINK! |
|
By:
I don't think any of you have spent a moment's thought on what occurred that night, and why it is such a difficult case to crack.
It is nowhere near as straight forward as you seem to think. Ask yourselves some questions. Seek out the logical answers that fit the 'facts'. Be wary of what you consider to be fact. Here is one question to help you. Do you consider that it was a killing (by the McCanns) or an abduction? |
|
By:
Yawn...............
Why don't ye go and bake a cake or do the dishes.. |
|
By:
One must expect a little stony ground when scattering ideas to the wind. BUT, at least you've thought about it. Credit to you for that.
|
|
By:
"Here is one question to help you. Do you consider that it was a killing (by the McCanns) or an abduction?" ...............Is that question legal?, is the case not 'sub judice', I have completely lost track as to where this case is at.
|
|
By:
Well, there is, of course, a possibility that she could have been killed by others. It was this possibility that I was trying to preclude. To all intents and purposes you could make the alternatives: Was it (whatever 'it' later transpires to be!) the parents or outsiders?
|
|
By:
No doubt if this had been some working class family on benefits the family would've been under far more scrutiny yet with these two and their tory pal that went out to help them we get some story of portugese police being incompetent and the dogs wrong as well.
 |
|
By:
Funny how the mention of the mccanns always drag out the internet's lowest forms of life doesn't it.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Are they the ones who abandoned their kid for a good piss up?
|
|
By:
Still nobody with an opinion, then? Just lots of seething and "if the lived on a council estate" comments.
They neglected their children, of that there is no doubt. Their crass stupidity probably contributed to the child's disappearance. Gigolo's point is very interesting...but I'll bet he doesn't know which bit!  |
|
By:
Why does everything in Britain inevitably boil down to class envy?
|
|
By:
What the feck are you actually asking Naydam?
|
|
By:
I'm asking if you have ever thought to sweep away all the 'council estate' rubbish, along with all of these 'manipulating the Government' and the Pope and uncle Tom Cobley etc.. Get past the point where they are slated for being negligent and that YOU would never do that. Forget about "Why have they still got their other kids?" It's all just clouding the issue.
Consider the two different scenarios put forward The McCanns (abduction) and detective Amaral (parents killed child). Which is most likely? Which is most possible? Who might gain from which outcome? Who was 'the undisclosed source' that ramped up the accusations with NO evidence whatsoever. It was undisclosed of course, so nobody was ever told who was supposedly leaking this 'information'. You must decide who wanted to show the parents in a bad light. Even now you all stick to what was in those banner headlines as proof. Can you actually name ONE piece of evidence that would support Amaral's allegations? If I can get you to think about things...you might just be a little less anti-McCann. Be very suspicious of ALL evidence as presented in The Police Files for that is just what they are. Files recordeds by the police...namely Amaral. |
|
By:
Can you actually name ONE piece of evidence that would support Amaral's allegations?
The dog evidence in the apartment . She had died there seemingly so who is going to abduct a dead person. The dog evidence in the car. The changes of the story: 1. (original police interview) "The patio doors were locked" (this meant the abductor had to have jemmy the window to get in and out). 2. (later police interview) "Oh the window wasnt broken it was opened from inside (?) , then actually the patio doors were open as thats the only way he could have got in , and these were open so that Madeleine could escape if there was a fire" .3 Later TV interview ."No we never thought Madeleine had wandered off herself because she wasnt strong enough to open the patio doors" The Tapas friends insisting Robert Murat was seen hanging about shortly after the disappearance at a time when it looked like he was going to be a good patsy for the it .Scores of people who knew Murat never noticed him , but a couple of McCanns friends did. The talking up of suspects who have already been ruled out in the media by Mitchell and The McCanns . Surely if you know they havent done it you wouldnt want the police wasting time with these guys as going down dead ends would make it easier for the real culprits to get away. Could go on and on with this . As for evidence of abduction to consider , what evidence was there ever. |
|
By:
There is no evidence of a killing in the flat or an abduction. Quite frankly there is no evidence of any crime.
|
|
By:
Unfortunately, you can't start with the evidence of the dog. He appears much later in the scene. But you ARE right in that he supplies the nearest thing to 'proof'. Please remember to view ALL evidence with extreme caution...things ain't what they seem!
You need to bear in mind that the dog is only brought in THREE months after the event! However, his evidence could prove vital in proving why this case has not progressed...but not in the way that you might think. From the start ere was conflict between the parents and the detective, Amaral. He seems to have decided very early on that the McCanns killed the child, whether by accident or design. And he set out to prove it. Unfortunately, he was unable to find any of the evidence he required. A personal comment here: This was a massive, worldwide case not suited to a detective of dubious integrity with methods that might be considered 'unusual'. He drew a total blank in his quest to pin the charge on them. He had made zero progress from day one. There was a rise in friction with the British police. At some point, he (and his team?) was removed from the case. I reckon that he formulated a plan for his retirement fund...A best selling book! The Truth of the Lie. But he still had NO evidence. So, very cleverly, he called in a British 'cadaver dog'. To be continued:- |
|
By:
naydam what is ur relation to the mccans?
|
|
By:
A problematic case for sure. I doubt we'll ever find out what happened to her. Has attracted some real nutcases on both sides.
Amaral went too far with his book. And very strange behaviour from the couple who from the very start have seemed most interested in protecting themselves from any blame. Grange has achieved nothing except ruling out the supposed "sighting" which leaves no evidence of an abduction except the missing child. The dog handler has been vilified but is the best in his field and was only doing his job. Not proper evidence but seems to suggest the child is dead and body moved. About all we've got to go on... |
|
By:
Naydams attempt to be the enigmatic voice of reason & an independent arbiter in this are laughable when he is so obviously as pro the mccanns as many on here are anti.What we do know is that the case has become a lucrative industry,a police jolly up,& that certain people very close to the case have chosen to change their story of events & chosen not to answer key questions .I suspect that the only way the truth about maddies disappearance will out will be if the priest that the mccanns alledgely confided in decides to go public
|
|
By:
[i]I would say that its pretty normal that most people cannot maintain the necessary discipline to give your full attention to a problem. It happens in most jobs.[/i
so how do you know the the 4 that remain are still focussed,none of the 29 appear to have been pulling up any trees over the last 3 or 4 years. |
|
By:
A_T. When you say that the dog handler 'has been vilified' can you add anything to this? Like by who or anything at all, really. Genuine request. Anything at all.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I have absolutely no relationship with the McCanns. Or with Goncalo Amaral, for that matter. I didn't think you were being serious.
|
|
By:
why do u defend them so hard
|
|
By:
?
|
|
By:
Defend them? From what?
|
|
By:
playing silly buggers now are we??
|
|
By:
I just don't get you at all. Are you saying that you think the McCanns are guilty of anything more than negligence?
|
|
By:
A_T. Please explain about the vilified comment. It could be very important. Please!
|
|
By:
important to who naydam?? who are u?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Our police have nothing, they never had anything
This is a serious waste of public money, although they are now reducing them to 6 Still a complete and utter waste but less so, they do not have a clue..just guessing |