Madeleine McCann

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by gazzae

£946,843.92 ?

Some people also revel in media attention, I'm sure there's a term for that.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The whole point of performing an investigation is to collect evidence to lead towards a conviction. So until there is no evidence pertaining to a paticular thread of enquiry it remains an active lead.

I'm assuming you mean 'until the police are satisfied there is no evidence', because there is, by definition, no evidence unless any evidence has actually been found.

Motive remans to be discovered, it;s the evidence that leads to motive in most cases.

The family have been investigated to a degree already, one of the press conferences was used to forensically psyschoanalyse the behavior of the parents. Actively advertising the fact that you know who your suspect is not the best route of action to take.

I'm not saying the family are above suspicion. People murder their children, that's a fact and its sufficient grounds to ask whether that happened here. It's not sufficient grounds for endless speculation however and it isn't sufficient grounds for the police to throw hour after hour of intense investigation at it in the hope that sooner or later, something will turn up.

I don't doubt for a second that they will have looked at how the parents behaved during a press conference but once again, it is a fallacy to make more of this than is actually the case. Asking questions and making enquiries does not infer that the police believe someone is guilty.

And we return again to the issue of Portuguese law - if the police had been pursuing the McCanns with the same intensity as they have Robert Murat, whay have the McCanns not yet been declared official suspects?

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

<snip>
I'm of the opinion that whilst they might not have done it, its feasible they could have.

In which case we are at linguistic cross-purposes. Feasible can mean either possible or likely and I have been understanding you to be suggesting the latter.

The fact that parents kill their children does indeed mean it is technically possible that the McCanns may have murdered their daughter. I do not however believe it is likely.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I'm assuming you mean 'until the police are satisfied there is no evidence', because there is, by definition, no evidence unless any evidence has actually been found.

Any need for being pedantic ?

I'm not saying the family are above suspicion. People murder their children, that's a fact and its sufficient grounds to ask whether that happened here. It's not sufficient grounds for endless speculation however and it isn't sufficient grounds for the police to throw hour after hour of intense investigation at it in the hope that sooner or later, something will turn up.

I don't doubt for a second that they will have looked at how the parents behaved during a press conference but once again, it is a fallacy to make more of this than is actually the case. Asking questions and making enquiries does not infer that the police believe someone is guilty.

And we return again to the issue of Portuguese law - if the police had been pursuing the McCanns with the same intensity as they have Robert Murat, whay have the McCanns not yet been declared official suspects?

Whose making more of it than it is ? I back up another post that says it should not be completely ignored. And the people who I work with and for, are of the opinion that in someway the parents are linked to this. It's a course of topic that cant be gotten away from.

Whose to say the Portugese have not cocked up ? It would not be the first time in this investigation that they had now. Would it ?


What really really hacks me off in all of this is the media circus that it has become. How many children have gone missing since the disappearance of Maddy ? and have they collectively received one tenth of the column inches that she has ? That is a the real disgrace (albeit for a completely different thread)

[r1ch]

Originally Posted by Chris T

And we return again to the issue of Portuguese law - if the police had been pursuing the McCanns with the same intensity as they have Robert Murat, whay have the McCanns not yet been declared official suspects?

As I said above, why would they do that when they don't have to? See here for some comments from a Portuguese lawyer on the subject:

Mr Rego said: "Sometimes when they (the police) suspect someone, they call that person in as a witness.
"They don't constitute him as arguido and they extract as much information from him as they can, because as a witness he cannot refuse to collaborate with the police.
"Now the moment he is constituted as arguido, as the defendant, then he can not only refuse to answer questions because they can incriminate him, but also he has the right to be accompanied in the questionings by his own solicitor."

The police don't have to name anyone as arguido unless they want to arrest them or the individual requests it.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I'm assuming you mean 'until the police are satisfied there is no evidence', because there is, by definition, no evidence unless any evidence has actually been found.



I'm not saying the family are above suspicion. People murder their children, that's a fact and its sufficient grounds to ask whether that happened here. It's not sufficient grounds for endless speculation however and it isn't sufficient grounds for the police to throw hour after hour of intense investigation at it in the hope that sooner or later, something will turn up.

I don't doubt for a second that they will have looked at how the parents behaved during a press conference but once again, it is a fallacy to make more of this than is actually the case. Asking questions and making enquiries does not infer that the police believe someone is guilty.

And we return again to the issue of Portuguese law - if the police had been pursuing the McCanns with the same intensity as they have Robert Murat, whay have the McCanns not yet been declared official suspects?

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------



In which case we are at linguistic cross-purposes. Feasible can mean either possible or likely and I have been understanding you to be suggesting the latter.

The fact that parents kill their children does indeed mean it is technically possible that the McCanns may have murdered their daughter. I do not however believe it is likely.

And on what basis do you form your opinion that is unlikely that they murdered or were somehow involved in the dissapearance of their own child ?

Do you know the parents ?

Have you had any part in the investigation ?

Or is it a case of watching the same old media circus rubbish as 99.9% of people ? And you came to the opinion that was 'No, they couldn't possibly do such a thing'

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

And on what basis do you form your opinion that is unlikely that they murdered or were somehow involved in the dissapearance of their own child ?

Do you know the parents ?

Have you had any part in the investigation ?

Or is it a case of watching the same old media circus rubbish as 99.9% of people ? And you came to the opinion that was 'No, they couldn't possibly do such a thing'

Take a chill pill my friend. I'm guessing that my knowledge of the parents and firsthand involvement in the case is just about the same as yours. Don't throw stones in a greenhouse.

And it's a bit rich for you to rail against the media circus whilst happily regurgitating the aimless, watercooler speculation of the people you work with.

As for my reasons for believing what I do, I have set them out, more than once, above. All that stuff about what they stood to gain, what they stood to lose, their likely ability to conceal a body in a foreign country ... you even replied to some of it.

And I never said I thought the family couldn't possibly do such a thing. In my reply to South London Mo (post 617, which you have in fact just quoted in reply to me) I said:

"The fact that parents kill their children does indeed mean it is technically possible that the McCanns may have murdered their daughter. I do not however believe it is likely."

Now, if you'd like to continue the discussion calmly, and on the basis of what I've actually said rather than on a distorted parody of it, by all means, let's continue.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Take a chill pill my friend. I'm guessing that my knowledge of the parents and firsthand involvement in the case is just about the same as yours. Don't throw stones in a greenhouse.

And it's a bit rich for you to rail against the media circus whilst happily regurgitating the aimless, watercooler speculation of the people you work with.

As for my reasons for believing what I do, I have set them out, more than once, above. All that stuff about what they stood to gain, what they stood to lose, their likely ability to conceal a body in a foreign country ... you even replied to some of it.

And I never said I thought the family couldn't possibly do such a thing. In my reply to South London Mo (post 617, which you have in fact just quoted in reply to me) I said:

"The fact that parents kill their children does indeed mean it is technically possible that the McCanns may have murdered their daughter. I do not however believe it is likely."

Now, if you'd like to continue the discussion calmly, and on the basis of what I've actually said rather than on a distorted parody of it, by all means, let's continue.

Im very calm about the entire thing, you said something along the lines of that you dont think they are capable of commiting such an act. Im asking on what basis do you form that opinion.

With regards to the individual case then we probably have the same amount of knowledge. However with regards to the conduct of a forensic investigation and what lines are/should be taken by a SIO and also CSC/CSM in handling an enquiry then I suspect we differ a bit.

And where just out of interest I have made a parody of what you have said ?

That would be the watercooler speculation of trained SOCO's who now train all english/welsh PSNI CSI/Crime scene managers and co ordinators is it ?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Im very calm about the entire thing, you said something along the lines of that you dont think they are capable of commiting such an act. Im asking on what basis do you form that opinion.

I said no such thing, and nothing I've said was intended to imply such a thing. I happen to believe that all human beings are entirely capable of pretty awful things, given the right circumstances.

With regards to the individual case then we probably have the same amount of knowledge. However with regards to the conduct of a forensic investigation and what lines are/should be taken by a SIO and also CSC/CSM in handling an enquiry then I suspect we differ a bit.

We may, but at the moment we're not talking about the conduct of the investigation. We're talking about the likelihood that the parents had something to do with the disappearance of the child.

And where just out of interest I have made a parody of what you have said ?

When you said:

"And you came to the opinion that was 'No, they couldn't possibly do such a thing' "

Seeing as I never expressed any such opinion, I'm at a loss to understand what I said that drew you to that conclusion - unless it is (at best) a gross misunderstanding of this:

"The fact that parents kill their children does indeed mean it is technically possible that the McCanns may have murdered their daughter. I do not however believe it is likely."

Which is, as far as I remember, the clearest statement I've made on my beliefs about what is possible or likely in this case.

That would be the watercooler speculation of trained SOCO's who now train all english/welsh PSNI CSI/Crime scene managers and co ordinators is it ?

Yes, unless they have access to the specifics of this case. Dress it up however you like, all any of us have got to go on, in the absence of hard facts, is probabilities, likelihoods and possibilities. On the other hand, if you do know someone who knows someone who has first-hand information that would enlighten this discussion, by all means post away.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but scene-of-crime specialists such as the ones you are acquainted with are not full police detectives with the breadth of experience to make authoritative speculation about the motives of people involved in criminal cases are they? Or am I taking an unduly narrow view of the work of SOCOs and the like?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I said no such thing, and nothing I've said was intended to imply such a thing. I happen to believe that all human beings are entirely capable of pretty awful things, given the right circumstances.



We may, but at the moment we're not talking about the conduct of the investigation. We're talking about the likelihood that the parents had something to do with the disappearance of the child.



When you said:

"And you came to the opinion that was 'No, they couldn't possibly do such a thing' "

Seeing as I never expressed any such opinion, I'm at a loss to understand what I said that drew you to that conclusion - unless it is (at best) a gross misunderstanding of this:

"The fact that parents kill their children does indeed mean it is technically possible that the McCanns may have murdered their daughter. I do not however believe it is likely."

Which is, as far as I remember, the clearest statement I've made on my beliefs about what is possible or likely in this case.



Yes, unless they have access to the specifics of this case. Dress it up however you like, all any of us have got to go on, in the absence of hard facts, is probabilities, likelihoods and possibilities. On the other hand, if you do know someone who knows someone who has first-hand information that would enlighten this discussion, by all means post away.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but scene-of-crime specialists such as the ones you are acquanited with are not full police detectives with the breadth of experience to make authoritative speculation about the motives of people involved in criminal cases are they? Or am I taking an unduly narrow view of the work of SOCOs and the like?

I think we're getting into semantics here.

Your post was along the lines of 'I think it's very improbable/highly unlikely that they would of been involved' Which is why I questioned on what basis you formed that.

fair comment on the dressing up of the 'Oh, they couldn't have possibly done it' comment whilst not directly attributed to you it was meant to display that the mentality of people who have watched things such as press conferences and believe what they see rather than question it, for that comment I apologise.

The work both myself and my colleagues do here relates to all forces across the UK and NI (excluding Scotland) and on occasion europe and yes there are individuals who have had first hand contact with the investigation. and at that point Im going to not go into this area anymore for obvious reasons.


SOCO/CSI is a changing roll with more and more convictions dependent on forensics. the part they/we play in gaining a conviction is increasing evermore. Senior Investigating officers now listen more and more as we are either corroberate or disprove a potential supsects claims. Again I'm not going to go into to much detail on here but if you would like to know more (Within reason of course) Id be more than happy to drop you an email or a pm

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I think we're getting into semantics here.

Your post was along the lines of 'I think it's very improbable/highly unlikely that they would of been involved' Which is why I questioned on what basis you formed that.

fair comment on the dressing up of the 'Oh, they couldn't have possibly done it' comment whilst not directly attributed to you it was meant to display that the mentality of people who have watched things such as press conferences and believe what they see rather than question it, for that comment I apologise.

The work both myself and my colleagues do here relates to all forces across the UK and NI (excluding Scotland) and on occasion europe and yes there are individuals who have had first hand contact with the investigation. and at that point Im going to not go into this area anymore for obvious reasons.


SOCO/CSI is a changing roll with more and more convictions dependent on forensics. the part they/we play in gaining a conviction is increasing evermore. Senior Investigating officers now listen more and more as we are either corroberate or disprove a potential supsects claims. Again I'm not going to go into to much detail on here but if you would like to know more (Within reason of course) Id be more than happy to drop you an email or a pm

I'm trying to avoid semantics, honestly.

I appreciate you can't post any specifics you may be privy to, but it was worth a try wasn't it?

Please understand, I am not simply regurgitating what I've seen on the TV. I am trying to think through the various possibilities and weigh up the likelihood of each based on the information available to me, from reports of this case and as a student of human nature in general. All I can do is make the best of what I've got to go on.

Based on what I have to go on, I don't think it's likely that they did it - the biggest objection I have, as I said earlier, is I just can't see how they could have devised a plan for disposing of a body whilst in a foreign country - unfamiliar territory, lack of access to the usual resources (without wishing to be unduly morbid, I'm thinking of spades and bin bags), etc.

I don't buy the theory that they are covering up an accident in order to avoid child neglect charges because it doesn't add up. Even if they did hide a body, in the course of the inquiry they have still had to account for their whereabouts, so it was very quickly established that they had left their children unattended in any case. Net gain to the McCanns - nothing. I can't believe they are not intelligent enough to have realised that hiding a tragic fatal accident would get them nowhere fast.

Add to all this, it would be extremely unlikely for parents to behave in such a way towards their children suddenly, out of the blue, without any prior attention being drawn towards them or interest from their local social services. And if there had been any such interest, you can bet it would have been reported by now. Remember no criminal procedings are active in the UK so there are no restrictions on what can be reported in the absence of an injunction (whose granting would itself have been reported).

Without any offence intended to the area of expertise of those you discuss this with at work, I still think the fact that they are in a discipline associated with police detective work means that they are affording their own theories a little more credence and authority than they are perhaps entitled to. Commenting beyond your expertise is a trap defence counsel will frequently try to draw you into and one I hope you warn your trainees against!

Incidentally, a feature on a short course in forensic techniques being offered at a local college was one of my first stories as a trainee reporter (many years ago now, and I don't even work in the Media any more, before you think I'm angling for a story) ... it is a subject I find endlessly fascinating, I may take you up on your kind offer of a chat by PM some time. For now though I am spending far too much of my working day posting on here and I reeeally need to stop ...

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Yes, unless they have access to the specifics of this case. Dress it up however you like, all any of us have got to go on, in the absence of hard facts, is probabilities, likelihoods and possibilities.

What about gossip and innuendo?

Seems strange to me that people think they could kill her and dispose of the body without the other children knowing, I know she was taken while they slept but her parents were in full public view for all but a few minutes of the evening, seems like a pretty good alibi to me

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I'm trying to avoid semantics, honestly.

I appreciate you can't post any specifics you may be privy to, but it was worth a try wasn't it?

Please understand, I am not simply regurgitating what I've seen on the TV. I am trying to think through the various possibilities and weigh up the likelihood of each based on the information available to me, from reports of this case and as a student of human nature in general. All I can do is make the best of what I've got to go on.

Based on what I have to go on, I don't think it's likely that they did it - the biggest objection I have, as I said earlier, is I just can't see how they could have devised a plan for disposing of a body whilst in a foreign country - unfamiliar territory, lack of access to the usual resources (without wishing to be unduly morbid, I'm thinking of spades and bin bags), etc.

I don't buy the theory that they are covering up an accident in order to avoid child neglect charges because it doesn't add up. Even if they did hide a body, in the course of the inquiry they have still had to account for their whereabouts, so it was very quickly established that they had left their children unattended in any case. Net gain to the McCanns - nothing. I can't believe they are not intelligent enough to have realised that hiding a tragic fatal accident would get them nowhere fast.

Add to all this, it would be extremely unlikely for parents to behave in such a way towards their children suddenly, out of the blue, without any prior attention being drawn towards them or interest from their local social services. And if there had been any such interest, you can bet it would have been reported by now. Remember no criminal procedings are active in the UK so there are no restrictions on what can be reported in the absence of an injunction (whose granting would itself have been reported).

Without any offence intended to the area of expertise of those you discuss this with at work, I still think the fact that they are in a discipline associated with police detective work means that they are affording their own theories a little more credence and authority than they are perhaps entitled to. Commenting beyond your expertise is a trap defence counsel will frequently try to draw you into and one I hope you warn your trainees against!

Incidentally, a feature on a short course in forensic techniques being offered at a local college was one of my first stories as a trainee reporter (many years ago now, and I don't even work in the Media any more, before you think I'm angling for a story) ... it is a subject I find endlessly fascinating, I may take you up on your kind offer of a chat by PM some time. For now though I am spending far too much of my working day posting on here and I reeeally need to stop ...

If you want a chat by PM then by all means please do. If you are really interested then I could probably get you some of our non restricted stuff.

Failing that if you are ever in the area drop me a PM and you could have a site visit

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I cannot believe that forum members are discussing the fact that they assume that the McCanns, are behind this terrible crime, of Madeline and are trying to figure out, how they have disposed the child, l strongly feel that these ' assumptions' are totally wrong, if you remember the press have stated that a witness, SAW the person kidnap the girl, well it could not have been the McCanns, as they were in the restuarant, as l have said, parents make mistakes and the child was within several feet of the restuarant, the biggest culprits, who should hold the head in shame, are the Portugese Police for failing to alert the public of this problem, also if she was seen at the garage, with TWO people, ARE these TWO people the same as, when the girl was spotted in Belgium, last week, the press make a lot of worrying information released, like today paper claim she was killed in a flat, this is even before, DNA tests have been carried out on the bottle, l believe she is still alive, but sadly l feel that she is in the hands of the 'sick ' people of this world, we have heard that a p### has been shot in the head, as he knew, someone who kidnapped the girl, as he had kidnapped another girl similar to Madeline, but there again, this has come from the press, who prey on these terrible crimes, and exaggerate them, let us wait for test on the DNA, on the blood samples and the bottle samples, and the witnesses who SAW the the girl (if it is Madeline), with the couple. it only makes the McCann more stressful, l hope and pray she is safe.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I cannot believe that forum members are discussing the fact that they assume that the McCanns, are behind this terrible crime, of Madeline and are trying to figure out, how they have disposed the child, l strongly feel that these ' assumptions' are totally wrong, if you remember the press have stated that a witness, SAW the person kidnap the girl, well it could not have been the McCanns, as they were in the restuarant, as l have said, parents make mistakes and the child was within several feet of the restuarant, the biggest culprits, who should hold the head in shame, are the Portugese Police for failing to alert the public of this problem, also if she was seen at the garage, with TWO people, ARE these TWO people the same as, when the girl was spotted in Belgium, last week, the press make a lot of worrying information released, like today paper claim she was killed in a flat, this is even before, DNA tests have been carried out on the bottle, l believe she is still alive, but sadly l feel that she is in the hands of the 'sick ' people of this world, we have heard that a p### has been shot in the head, as he knew, someone who kidnapped the girl, as he had kidnapped another girl similar to Madeline, but there again, this has come from the press, who prey on these terrible crimes, and exaggerate them, let us wait for test on the DNA, on the blood samples and the bottle samples, and the witnesses who SAW the the girl (if it is Madeline), with the couple. it only makes the McCann more stressful, l hope and pray she is safe.

Hang on a moment, who has assumed that ? All anyone has ever said is that until it can be completely ruled out it should remain an active focus of investigation

Sounds reasonable to me really..................

I don't think anyone is assuming the McCanns butchered their daughter and buried her body Arthur. We've just been spending some time considering how likely an explanation it is. Some of us think it more or less likely than others.

None of us want that to be the case and I don't think anyone's assuming it is. We all want to see Madeleine home safely.