Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 922 comments are related to the topic:
McCanns lose court case
McCanns lose court case
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 922
|
By:
so annoying that quote thing
what i was saying to Clydebank is that while there is not enough to convict all the evidence there is points in one direction , but the only coverage you see in the media is about a search for an abductor , and more infuriating , there is a very expensive taxpayers funded police operation running interminably in Portugal under the instructions to check out abductor suspects only , when there is not a shred of evidence of any abduction. |
|
By:
so you think jogging makes someone look guilty, it does seem odd .
Do you think if she was guilty she might have thought to herself, I better not go jogging It might not look good, |
|
By:
|
|
By:
again with this quote thing
 to Clydebank, The timeline we have from witness statements does indeed make it seem very hard to have done this and gotten away with it . So it is like what Raymond Chandler said to explain why The Wallace Murder was so fascinating 'Wallace couldn’t have done it, and neither could anyone else' . I expect there is something bogus about one or more of the witness statements. |
|
By:
The language they used throughout the programme was shown to be 'distancing' language and geared to covering their own arses throughout.
|
|
By:
I suppose she has a iron constitution and nothing fazes her
|
|
By:
she's middle class , that's how they behave.
|
|
By:
that's how everyone used to behave.
|
|
By:
You've not watched it, have you?
|
|
By:
Dangerous innuendo and prejudice on much of this thread,still impossible to really know for certain what happened. Going back, I read an article about how Clement Freud befriended the McCanns soon afterwards as he lived nearby and I have long doubted the ability to ever get the truth about what happened.
|
|
By:
you have not understood it have you ?
|
|
By:
LOL, maybe your contributions to this thread would be a little less frustrating if you knew what those of us that have watched it were talking about.
|
|
By:
There is nothing presented here which isn`t already in the public domain.
|
|
By:
tobermory 01 Feb 17 19:02
One thing you can always rely upon wherever this case is debated , is that the defenders of The Mcanns will always reveal themselves to be ignorant of key details about the case , if not totally clueless. Yes, where is Naydam ? |
|
By:
ah yes !
Naydam and Facts were the main defenders of The McCanns on here. Surprised if Naydam was banned , but Facts never did much to warrant it either. |
|
By:
Proponents say statement analysis has proven effective as a police interrogation technique, but critics argue that it has not been subjected to objective analysis, with most of the studies failing to have used any outside criteria to confirm whether the statements were actually true or false. As it has not been proven experimentally and is generally unaccepted by courts, skeptics call it an example of pseudoscience.
|
|
By:
Ignoring the statement analysis where is the evidence in the 3 parts?
|
|
By:
The programme is about the statement analysis. Nobody has tried to claim anything different.
|
|
By:
Lat I thought someone mentioned DNA?
If its just statement analysis then it's worthless imo |
|
By:
The main evidence I got was the photo taken 7 hours before she disappeared. Given they went out to dinner in the evening, that doesn't leave long to dispose of the body. 5 hours between that photo, kill her, come up with a story, and dispose of the body so that its never found.
|
|
By:
There was a brief reference to a cadaver dog sensing a body had been present in the car that the McCanns hired a month after Madeleine went missing, but that's already well documented.
The legitimacy, or otherwise, of the photograph you reference has already been covered in a link further up the thread. There is a suggestion from the statement analysis that the timeline as laid out by the McCanns may not be accurate. Hand on heart, I'm not sure that necessarily fits as that would surely mean they had to get more people in on the fabricated story. |
|
By:
^ re the alleged 7 hours
I got confused with the bit about staff members seeing her at High Tea at 5.30PM. Did they or didn't they? And if she wasn't there, why would the McCanns claim that she was and risk the staff definitively remembering that she wasn't? |
|
By:
And FWIW, the statement analysis suggests that it was not a premeditated killing, merely an accident. Hyatt believes that from what the McCanns said, freely, that Kate gave Maddie her usual 'sleepy time' dose of cough medicine, or whatever (she's an anaesthetist by trade), at some point she got up feely groggy, fell over, presumably hit her head and succumbed to her injuries.
The reason the McCanns, according to Hyatt, could not allow the authorities to know about this could be because of a fear of losing their careers or, as is also intimated, because it may have exposed Gerry as being some kind of child abuser. |
|
By:
That's nothing more than a theory based on nothing remotely concrete.
|
|
By:
From what I can see...he was analysing statements made in a TV interview 4 years after the event ...apologies if I have got this wrong, it is not c1ear.
I would have thought that statements made in the immediate aftermath of the event are more suitable for analysis of this type. I believe when we remember something, we are remembering the last time we spoke abut it, rather than when it actually happened...so this inevitably distorts the language used over time. It may also explain the use of the past tense...perhaps by the time of the interview they were reconciled to her likely death. I mean it's Cop Show 101A not to refer to the missing in the past tense...the McCanns are high IQ people would be more than aware of this and not fall into this trap if trying to deflect suspicion. |
|
By:
It is a theory based on the statements made by the McCanns. As I said in my first post, I found the analysis to be compelling. We're not just talking about the odd little thing that gets said. It all stacks up.
Whether you buy into it or not, that's up to you, but I wouldn't necessarily make a judgement without watching the programme. There's far too much of it to note every snippet here  |
|
By:
I do agree on that point, itcanbedone, but I still felt a lot of the language used (aside from the past tenses) didn't add up.
|
|
By:
I watched part One Lat. I didn't see anything in that to warrant going further' as I think statement analysis is full of holes, especially given the number of interviews and the timing of those interviews, which wasn't addressed. Common sense to me is that they probably didn't kill her.
|
|
By:
You wonder if its as simple as her wandering out of the unlocked apartment, getting hit by some drunk codger driving home from the pub, who then threw her in his boot.
|
|
By:
What track record has the statement analysis expert in previous cases that he has been proven to be right, such as this were the police were at an impasse ?
|
|
By:
Has his analysis ever been proven to be right in the past ?
|
|
By:
He claims north of 99% accuracy.
|
|
By:
What cases did he help to solve ?
|
|
By:
Statement analysis is not admissable in a court of law.
|
|
By:
He isn't exactly an independent ajudicator though latalomne...I would prefer some independent verification of that.
|
|
By:
http://www.hyattanalysis.com/services/law-enforcement-statement-analysis/
|
|
By:
I know, I am not asking that . What record has he of helping the police solve cases?
|
|
By:
Common sense to me is that they probably didn't kill her.
What happened then ? What common sense is there for an abductor to take her ? For ransom when there was no ransom note ? To molest her , when he could have done it right there in the apartment ? |
|
By:
none lfc, it's inadmissible in US courts.
|
|
By:
will take a look later . Expect to see cases that he has helped the police
|