Jump to content

The Truth of the Lie


WWFChilli

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
At some point in any missing persons' case, there's a point at which people eventually accept the missing person is dead (or not coming back) and try and move on with their lives. Unless of course you're addicted to the attention, and so deep into your own bullshit that you've started to believe it.

Someone takes your child and you "move on with your life"? If it happened to me, I wouldn't live another a day of my life until I found her. I don't think that's a valid criticism at all.

 

I think it's possible they killed her, a fit of rage, an overdose, etc. I just don't think the fact that they haven't moved on proves anything.

 

You would, though. I know everyone thinks they'd not sleep until they found their child, but if days became months became years, you would. You'd go back to work, you might even have more children. Humans are remarkably resilient. They are basically still in denial that she's even dead, which I find a bit weird after all this time.

 

Really? I think human beings are so individual as a species that there's no one set reaction to something like that, like with any kind of grief. There are plenty of famous examples of kids who went missing with parents who never recovered. Winnie Johnson, mother of Keith who was killed by Myra and Ian Brady in 1964, is still campaigning today because she they never revealed where the remains were. Still campaigning, still utterly broken. And recently, there were arrests in the Damien Nettles case. He went missing in 1996, but the parents certainly never "moved on" in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Maybe you're right. I guess I'm trying to express an innate feeling about the manner of their campaign that doesn't sit right with me. I understand still campaigning, I don't understand the tone of it, always blaming the Portugese police, the British police, the media, always raising money... there's something about it that seems wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus you know it's just because they are doctors or whatever they haven't really been looked into or at least been done on leaving kids alone if it was a (say for example) cashier from Tesco's and a Bin Man or 2 unemployed ppl it would of been splashed all over papers just how bad of parents they were and they may of even had their other kids taken off them.

I agree that the reaction in general to the situation would have been entirely different had the parents been as you describe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a story that should make you stop and think

A former casino croupier who made television appeals for his 'missing' wife to get in touch has admitted killing her before dumping her dismembered body on waste ground

 

...

 

Detectives believe Quy became obsessed with the thrill of having an audience watching his "grief", and was carried away at suddenly being the centre of attention.

 

 

Didn't Ian Huntley go on GMTV or some other show during the Sohem murders?

 

That documentary made a whole lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Lots of things don't seem to add up in this case. The McCanns don't seem to have co operated too much with the Portuguese police yet they are the ones being called inefficient. They've refused to hand over credit card details, phone call details etc.

Have they? I've never heard that. Where did that story come from?

 

Is there not a strong rumour that they bought a fridge around the time of the disappearance? Just strange things like that that make their behaviour odd.

When you say "Around the time" do you mean they got up in the middle of dinner and went o buy a fridge or are we talking a day or 2 before? Because I can't see a lot strange in that.

 

I got sent this txt by a mate of mine.

 

"Ashley Cole is sueing The News of the World for breaching a superinjunction he had about a secret affair he was having. The story the paper will print on Sunday reveals Cole had an ilicit affair with a young lady called Maddie who he met while on holiday in Portugal."

That's shit, a little bit sick and entirely unfunny. Why even share that?

 

Really? I think human beings are so individual as a species that there's no one set reaction to something like that, like with any kind of grief. There are plenty of famous examples of kids who went missing with parents who never recovered. Winnie Johnson, mother of Keith who was killed by Myra and Ian Brady in 1964, is still campaigning today because she they never revealed where the remains were. Still campaigning, still utterly broken. And recently, there were arrests in the Damien Nettles case. He went missing in 1996, but the parents certainly never "moved on" in the meantime.

Not to mention the odd case where the kid turns up alive years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of things don't seem to add up in this case. The McCanns don't seem to have co operated too much with the Portuguese police yet they are the ones being called inefficient. They've refused to hand over credit card details, phone call details etc.

Have they? I've never heard that. Where did that story come from?

It's pretty well established in the Portuguese press, it's repeatedly mentioned in Goncaro Amaral's book. It just isn't reported over here. I believe his greatest grievance is that they refused to hand over credit card records, phone records, and DNA samples from their other two children. These items could well have greatly helped their investigation. Problem was: the McCanns were the prime suspects at the time. Hence, they refused to co-operate. They then have the gall to say that the Portuguese are unhelpful and lazy when they were doing all they could to solve the case.

 

If the McCanns are innocent, why not handover the requested items to help prove their innocence, and thus ensure the Portuguese focus their enquiries productively.

If they are guilty, well, that explains this behaviour comprehensively.

 

There, in a nutshell, is a solid counter-argument to anyone who believes the McCanns are without guilt in all this and deserve our sympathy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Lots of things don't seem to add up in this case. The McCanns don't seem to have co operated too much with the Portuguese police yet they are the ones being called inefficient. They've refused to hand over credit card details, phone call details etc.

Have they? I've never heard that. Where did that story come from?

It's pretty well established in the Portuguese press, it's repeatedly mentioned in Goncaro Amaral's book. It just isn't reported over here. I believe his greatest grievance is that they refused to hand over credit card records, phone records, and DNA samples from their other two children. These items could well have greatly helped their investigation. Problem was: the McCanns were the prime suspects at the time. Hence, they refused to co-operate. They then have the gall to say that the Portuguese are unhelpful and lazy when they were doing all they could to solve the case.

 

If the McCanns are innocent, why not handover the requested items to help prove their innocence, and thus ensure the Portuguese focus their enquiries productively.

If they are guilty, well, that explains this behaviour comprehensively.

 

There, in a nutshell, is a solid counter-argument to anyone who believes the McCanns are without guilt in all this and deserve our sympathy.

Have the McCanns admitted or denied these claims? I find that incredibly hard to believe that they refused this kind of co-operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I remember press conferences where journalists were asking them if they were going to answer the questions the Portugese Police had for them, and if not, why not.

I think it was when they were flying back out to Portugal. But it did get some coverage in the UK press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have the McCanns admitted or denied these claims? I find that incredibly hard to believe that they refused this kind of co-operation.

 

I don't think the questions are posed to them that often. You must realise they have hundreds of thousands of pounds at their disposal to throw at a lawsuit at will. They did so with Amaral and I doubt the press would want to speculate, knowing that neither innocence nor guilt can be conclusively proved. I recall the Gerry McCann slating the author of the book for his defamatory "conclusions" but offered nothing in the way of explaining a reasoning behind not co-operating.

 

I can't answer why they refused to co-operate in this manner, nor why the Portuguese couldn't go around them to seize the records as part of their investigation or why this is not being revisited because it seems pretty darned important and obvious to me. This all said, hard though it may be to believe, that is the status quo.

 

Edit: Don't overlook the fact that since then the McCanns have arguably done very little to actually help find the girl and much more on publicising their fund / book. They've stockpiled a sizable war chest in the Find Madeleine fund which, rather than being put to use on private investigators and the like, a massive amount has been spent on their own legal fees,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Ok, so my next question is where did that information come from regarding the spending of the fund? and again I'd like to repeat the question as to whether the McCann's have confirmed or denied their lack of co-operation? You see the rason I have trouble believing they refused is because I don't understand why the Police, if they were doing their jobs properly, couldn't get what they needed without consent. It was a serious investigation and a high profile one at that, such things shouldn't be able to be let go so easily. Likewise the McCann's would have to know how bad they could look for not co-operating if it came out, it's a very risky move.

 

At the moment it sounds as though we have the word of the Police, who were under a lot of critism, if the British press don't want to touch what is arguably a big story then there must be some holes in it. Likewise with the money. Your description sounds like serious misuse to me and if that is correct and can be proven then that fund needs to stop benefiting from people's good will or someone else needs to take charge of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Likewise the McCann's would have to know how bad they could look for not co-operating if it came out

To many, the McCann's have come out of this looking bad.

 

I know it's the Daily Mail, but it's the first article I could find from a British newspaper, and as far as I know, they haven't had to retract the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...nswer--did.html

 

In an investigation you have the right not to answer any questions that will incriminate you (see also; Barrymoore, Michael), so I'm assuming they're exercising this right. Should they be charged and brought to court, they will be legally obligated to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of things don't seem to add up in this case. The McCanns don't seem to have co operated too much with the Portuguese police yet they are the ones being called inefficient. They've refused to hand over credit card details, phone call details etc.

Have they? I've never heard that. Where did that story come from?

 

Is there not a strong rumour that they bought a fridge around the time of the disappearance? Just strange things like that that make their behaviour odd.

When you say "Around the time" do you mean they got up in the middle of dinner and went o buy a fridge or are we talking a day or 2 before? Because I can't see a lot strange in that.

 

 

 

 

To be honest, I got those bits from the pistolhead forum that was linked to earlier. These things had been discussed with things being linked to it. I read from page 97 to 126 but trust me they were there with links to more official sites.

 

RE: The fridge. I believe they bought it a day or two afterwards. You don't find it odd that they went out a couple of days after their daughter went missing to buy a fridge? Even if Madeline hadn't gone missing who buys a fridge whilst on holiday? I'm not saying "OMG that's where they stored the body" or anything, just trying to highlight that their behaviour was odd.

 

Gon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Likewise the McCann's would have to know how bad they could look for not co-operating if it came out

To many, the McCann's have come out of this looking bad.

 

I know it's the Daily Mail, but it's the first article I could find from a British newspaper, and as far as I know, they haven't had to retract the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...nswer--did.html

 

In an investigation you have the right not to answer any questions that will incriminate you (see also; Barrymoore, Michael), so I'm assuming they're exercising this right. Should they be charged and brought to court, they will be legally obligated to answer.

They mostly seem like reasonable questions so I can not understand why should wouldn't answer them. If that's true it astounds me the British press maintained support of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so my next question is where did that information come from regarding the spending of the fund? and again I'd like to repeat the question as to whether the McCann's have confirmed or denied their lack of co-operation? You see the rason I have trouble believing they refused is because I don't understand why the Police, if they were doing their jobs properly, couldn't get what they needed without consent. It was a serious investigation and a high profile one at that, such things shouldn't be able to be let go so easily. Likewise the McCann's would have to know how bad they could look for not co-operating if it came out, it's a very risky move.

 

At the moment it sounds as though we have the word of the Police, who were under a lot of critism, if the British press don't want to touch what is arguably a big story then there must be some holes in it. Likewise with the money. Your description sounds like serious misuse to me and if that is correct and can be proven then that fund needs to stop benefiting from people's good will or someone else needs to take charge of it.

 

I understand your cynicism Kris, since we are collectively only being told one version of this story. A story that has many, many inconsistencies. They are also commandeering millions of pounds in donations on the pretence that their daughter was abducted, which the people investigating the incident don't consider the most likely scenario. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but do have a look at that Pistonheads thread I posted earlier. Page 71 onwards are the more recent posts. Try to avoid the mongs though, obviously. It is the internet after all.

 

I must say before continuing that people waste days debating the did-they/didnt-they aspect and I don't particularly care for that. I'm just saying this because I do not accept the "poor Kate and Gerry" stuff at face value. Madeleine is(/was?) the only true victim in all of this. Our tax money is now being spent on this charade, hence it is very much in the public interest that the truth comes out. For that to happen, the McCanns must be examined.

 

To answer your points

 

1. How they spent the fund: well these guys are pretty animated about it and can explain in detail http://mccannfundfraud.info/

Also they used it to pay their mortgage until there was a minor uproar.

 

2. I cannot answer whether the McCanns have confirmed or denied refusing to cooperate. This is immaterial though surely. The Portuguese police should not have an agenda. However, these facts have been reported in our press - Kate refused to cooperate with interrogation, they refused to volunteer their phone records*, and refused to take part in a reconstruction because she's "suspicious" of the police's "motives". MOTIVES?! What, like establishing what really happened? Or seeing if the witnesses versions of events are the same?

 

* = after Portugal's supreme court blocked the cops from seizing them. This is their right, but still, why not offer it if they have nothing to hide.

 

3. I do not know why the Portuguese police cannot get their hands on the credit card records they requested. The phone records thing is explained above. I would speculate that it's now a diplomatic matter - our media and even some politicians been massively criticising/insulting the way they handled the case.

 

The press over here are NOT going to publicly question the official story when:

(a) they have established themselves as litigious

(b) they have 6 or 7 figures in their fund to put toward legal fees and lawsuits

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...