the McCanns

[Batman]

Take your anonymous troll act someplace else, aintforever. I'd suggest the thread you left out of decency.

 

I won't be bullied into a different opinion.

 

So, you think they were crisis actors?

[pap]

So, you think they were crisis actors?

 

aintforever and Verbal? No.

 

Their crises are real.

[pap]

Interesting clip here.

 

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe confirms that coppers were handed the file by the McCanns and slips up by referring to the case as a murder investigation.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6c1aRUUPgE&feature=youtu.be

 

Also confirms that defamation is a civil matter. They'll only get involved if people are threatened.

[aintforever]

Take your anonymous troll act someplace else, aintforever. I'd suggest the thread you left out of decency.

 

I won't be bullied into a different opinion.

 

I admitted I was wrong and apologised to that pilot hero dude on that other thread after you and your mong-board mates jumped on me a while ago, it's not hard for a normal person to admit they got something wrong.

 

There was a good interview on Radio 5 this morning about Brenda Leyland, conspiracy theorists and their inability to admit they are wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is something wrong mentally apparently. look it up, it may be of interest.

[pap]

I admitted I was wrong and apologised to that pilot hero dude on that other thread after you and your mong-board mates jumped on me a while ago, it's not hard for a normal person to admit they got something wrong.

 

There was a good interview on Radio 5 this morning about Brenda Leyland, conspiracy theorists and their inability to admit they are wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is something wrong mentally apparently. look it up, it may be of interest.

I think you are confusing me with someone that never admits he is in the wrong and/or someone that is part of a little clique.

 

Easily done. A lot of it about.

Edited 8 October, 2014 by pap

[sadoldgit]

Richard Hall has released a series of films on the McCanns in the last few weeks. There is about four hours of material in all, and he doesn't get around to covering half the inconsistencies. Part three is of particular interest, covering the various detective agencies hired to get results. Unfailingly bent, and no history of ever recovering missing children. There's an in-depth look at one of the most important events in the timeline; the alleged 6:30pm sighting of Madeleine by David Payne, the last time anyone other than the McCanns is reported to have seen Madeleine alive. Special attention is also given to Clarence Mitchell, the media spinner that was assigned to the McCanns within days of the disappearance.

 

I've seen all four; the embedded vid stitches them together. No real expectation that loads will settle in to watch this, but if you have had an interest in the case before, I'd say this is well worth your time, all 4h and 10min of it.

 

 

Having just watched all 4 plus hours of this vid I can concur with Pap that it is well worth spending the time if you are interested in this case. It is well put together and raises many questions. I found the part about the sniffer dogs especially interesting but the whole situation is crying out to be scrutinised even more thoroughly. It is a shame that it didn't go to court (or hasn't yet) as it would shine a very bright light on all of the evidence collected so far. If the McCanns are innocent they would have nothing to fear. There are more loose ends here than a bowl of spaghetti.

[pap]

Having just watched all 4 plus hours of this vid I can concur with Pap that it is well worth spending the time if you are interested in this case. It is well put together and raises many questions. I found the part about the sniffer dogs especially interesting but the whole situation is crying out to be scrutinised even more thoroughly. It is a shame that it didn't go to court (or hasn't yet) as it would shine a very bright light on all of the evidence collected so far. If the McCanns are innocent they would have nothing to fear. There are more loose ends here than a bowl of spaghetti.

 

Hall's movie benefits from the passage of time. The sniffer dogs are a good example. Instead of looking at all the cases where dog evidence had led to successful conclusions, the McCanns played up one case that seriously disputed its worth, the Zapata murder of 1976. One of the judges ruled the evidence as inadmissible, saying that dog evidence was no more reliable than the toss of a coin. Eventually, Zapata confessed to the murder of his wife in a plea bargain. The dog evidence was sound all along; it was the poor judgement of a judge (!) and Gerry McCann's tub-thumping that threw it into question.

 

As you say, it would be interesting to see how the evidence is received in a court of law. At this point though, all Operation Grange seems to be doing is throwing up more suspects that it doesn't arrest. We've had newspaper reports that the coppers were flying out to make arrests twice this year already, yet no arrests have been made.

[sadoldgit]

The very dodgy private investigators that the McCanns have heavily invested the public's money in also raise concerns. The whole thing is a complete shambles and could do with a full public enquiry.

[pap]

The very dodgy private investigators that the McCanns have heavily invested the public's money in also raise concerns. The whole thing is a complete shambles and could do with a full public enquiry.

 

Given the amount of prior and consequent criminal convictions of many of the detective agencies' staff, coupled with zero experience in tracking down missing kids, those agencies look like the last place you'd go to if you were serious about finding a missing child. They were ideal for generating stories of suspects, etc - but could never be seen as a serious means to achieve the job that they have been employed for.

[sadoldgit]

Kate says that they have been "naïve". Criminally negligent I would say. I think any one of us would have been out there searching for our child the night she went missing - would take a lie detector test - would answer questions willingly - would only employ reputable people etc.

 

What amazes me is that they haven't been particularly clever. They just seem to bungle and stumble their way through all of the difficult questions that have been fired at them and nothing happens when they clearly do not come across as convincing.

 

If there is no proof of an abductor then it puts the McCanns firmly in the line of fire.

[pap]

Kate says that they have been "naïve". Criminally negligent I would say. I think any one of us would have been out there searching for our child the night she went missing - would take a lie detector test - would answer questions willingly - would only employ reputable people etc.

 

What amazes me is that they haven't been particularly clever. They just seem to bungle and stumble their way through all of the difficult questions that have been fired at them and nothing happens when they clearly do not come across as convincing.

 

If there is no proof of an abductor then it puts the McCanns firmly in the line of fire.

 

I think that's a big part of the reason why there is such huge public interest in the case. Anyone with kids will run their own parenting logic and quickly determine that something doesn't add up, which is a fairly large proportion of the population. All the points you mention are valid. Said it before, but as a parent myself, the last thing I'd be thinking about if my kid was missing was how I might be perceived. It really wouldn't matter at that point, especially if I knew I was innocent.

 

I think the films ably demonstrate the way that stories were changed as new information came to light. Had the Portuguese authorities had a free hand in pursuing the prosecution, I think any competent prosecution lawyer would have ripped their testimonies to pieces under cross-examination. Any cleverness has been in ensuring that real scrutiny, especially judicial scrutiny, didn't happen.

 

I wonder how many people that donated to the Madeleine fund knew that part of the money was going to be used for a media monitoring unit.

[sadoldgit]

I wonder just how much of the money actually went into helping a legitimate search for Madeleine?

[aintforever]

Kate says that they have been "naïve". Criminally negligent I would say. I think any one of us would have been out there searching for our child the night she went missing - would take a lie detector test - would answer questions willingly - would only employ reputable people etc.

 

What amazes me is that they haven't been particularly clever. They just seem to bungle and stumble their way through all of the difficult questions that have been fired at them and nothing happens when they clearly do not come across as convincing.

 

If there is no proof of an abductor then it puts the McCanns firmly in the line of fire.

 

Weird that a couple who supposedly killed their own daughter they are so intent on keeping it such a high profile case in the media.

 

It's almost as if they didn't do it and want the publicity to help find their loved one.

[sadoldgit]

Weird that a couple who supposedly killed their own daughter they are so intent on keeping it such a high profile case in the media.

 

It's almost as if they didn't do it and want the publicity to help find their loved one.

 

The longer they perpetuate the abducted theory the longer the spotlight stays off of them. Suggest you watch some if not all of the Richard Hall video. If you still think that they are squeaky clean after that, fine.

[aintforever]

The longer they perpetuate the abducted theory the longer the spotlight stays off of them. Suggest you watch some if not all of the Richard Hall video. If you still think that they are squeaky clean after that, fine.

 

There wouldn't be a spotlight if it wasn't for them. They are the only reason it has been in the media for years.

 

If they did it why would they get the MET to open a new investigation when the whole thing would have just gone away?

Edited 9 October, 2014 by aintforever

[sadoldgit]

There wouldn't be a spotlight if it wasn't for them. They are the only reason it has been in the media for years.

 

If they did it why would they get the MET to open a new investigation when the whole thing would have just gone away?

 

Watch Richard Hall's videos. They are calling for the Met to investigate the alleged abduction. I am sure they last thing tey want is to be named a suspects again. The longer they keep it going to more money pours in, Watch the films and then come back. If you are still certain they are kosher fair dos.

[buctootim]

The longer they perpetuate the abducted theory the longer the spotlight stays off of them. Suggest you watch some if not all of the Richard Hall video. If you still think that they are squeaky clean after that, fine.

 

Richard Hall is a crank. You are mistaking the ability to pull together a story with the ability to pull together evidence of guilt.

[aintforever]

Watch Richard Hall's videos. They are calling for the Met to investigate the alleged abduction. I am sure they last thing tey want is to be named a suspects again. The longer they keep it going to more money pours in, Watch the films and then come back. If you are still certain they are kosher fair dos.

 

I will watch it if I get time but I have already read a lot about the case.

 

You still haven't explained why they would actively get MET detectives sniffing around if they did do it. They very last thing you would want is a new investigation, let alone all the publicity.

[pap]

Richard Hall is a crank. You are mistaking the ability to pull together a story with the ability to pull together evidence of guilt.

 

Does a degree underpin this vast analytical insight? It's a credit to our education system, if so.

[Saint_Ash]

The question remains why are the McCanns being assisted so much from up high in the government. As soon as they started being questioned they were sent Clarence Mitchell and Kate did her no comment routine to questions that could help her daughter if she was abducted. Something seriously dodgy has happened out there and unless one of the tapas 8 (I think) blabs then we'll never know what happened to maddy.

[sadoldgit]

I will watch it if I get time but I have already read a lot about the case.

 

You still haven't explained why they would actively get MET detectives sniffing around if they did do it. They very last thing you would want is a new investigation, let alone all the publicity.

 

It is a big chunk of time but worth the effort I think. Why wouldn't they keep things going? If they go quiet now their detractors will say they have ridden out the storm. They could have helped the original investigation by taking lie detector tests and answering questions earlier but chose not to. Will they take a test now? Probably not. Their best form of defence is attack. Have they said to the Met come and investigate us as suspects to help clear our names? No. They are saying come and try and find the abductor.

 

There is an awful lot that doesn't tie up and if you know anything about body language Gerry McCann does not come across as dead straight from day 1.

 

Through the films it is also interesting to note how the McCann's change their stories as things progress. Payne's evidence is very poor.

 

As I say, try and watch the films, even if it is only the one about the cadaver and blood sniffer dogs.

[CB Saint]

Are people really suggesting that the McCanns are complicit in Madelines abduction and that fact is being covered up by the "tapas 8" with help from senior government figures?

[sadoldgit]

Richard Hall is a crank. You are mistaking the ability to pull together a story with the ability to pull together evidence of guilt.

 

I don't know much about Richard Hall but what I would say, from having sat through his 4 hours of film, is that he raises many very interesting points that need answering.

[sadoldgit]

Are people really suggesting that the McCanns are complicit in Madelines abduction and that fact is being covered up by the "tapas 8" with help from senior government figures?

 

There seems to be no evidence of an abduction but there also seems to be evidence that she died in the apartment.

[pap]

Are people really suggesting that the McCanns are complicit in Madelines abduction and that fact is being covered up by the "tapas 8" with help from senior government figures?

 

There is no proof that Madeleine McCann was abducted and plenty of evidence to suggest she was not. Getting it into a court is the problem.

[buctootim]

I don't know much about Richard Hall but what I would say, from having sat through his 4 hours of film, is that he raises many very interesting points that need answering.

 

 

In that case you'll love his no planes hit twin towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So or how the Tavistock Institute (a tiny UK charity) have "control of art, music, drugs and hence the masses". The guy is a 24 carat fruit loop, much funnier than Pap, who is just a credulous follower.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It's a old legal principle that an absence of evidence my no means amounts to evidence of absence. The suggestion that no evidence can be found to support the abduction theory does not itself prove that this little girl was not abducted. Far from it, given the evidence that the crime scene seems to have been seriously compromised by any modern UK forensic investigation standard.

 

More than that, it seems to me that if you take a microscope and look long and hard enough into the life of virtually any adult Human Being on this planet then I guarantee you that some sort of 'dirt' will inevitably be found on them. In the same manner the closer you look into any complex and disputed incident, such as this tragic matter (or the death of JFK for instance), then the more minor inconsistencies and misunderstandings that are bound to arise. It is a relatively simple matter for any clever writer to elevate these apparent discrepancies and make more of them than they really merit.

 

To charge the McCanns with a crime quite as heinous as being involved in the death of their own child then surely a high standard of proof will be required. Without this hard evidence then a case based primarily on circumstantial 'evidence' will probably be rejected by any British jury on the grounds of 'reasonable doubt' - and quite right too.

 

In reality The Crown Prosecution Service only bring cases when they feel that there is a good chance of a conviction - it seems to me that the fact that the McCann's have not been charged in this matter (thus far anyway) speaks volumes about the real strength (or otherwise) of the case against them.

[pap]

In that case you'll love his no planes hit twin towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So or how the Tavistock Institute (a tiny UK charity) have "control of art, music, drugs and hence the masses". The guy is a 24 carat fruit loop, much funnier than Pap, who is just a credulous follower.

I'm guessing Oxbridge.

[buctootim]

I'm guessing Oxbridge.

 

Where do you stand on the 'Jesus was an Egyptian Pharoah who married his sister' one Pap?

[CB Fry]

It's a old legal principle that an absence of evidence my no means amounts to evidence of absence. The suggestion that no evidence can be found to support the abduction theory does not itself prove that this little girl was not abducted. Far from it, given the evidence that the crime scene seems to have been seriously compromised by any modern UK forensic investigation standard.

 

More than that, it seems to me that if you take a microscope and look long and hard enough into the life of virtually any adult Human Being on this planet then I guarantee you that some sort of 'dirt' will inevitably be found on them. In the same manner the closer you look into any complex and disputed incident, such as this tragic matter (or the death of JFK for instance), then the more minor inconsistencies and misunderstandings that are bound to arise. It is a relatively simple matter for any clever writer to elevate these apparent discrepancies and make more of them than they really merit.

 

To charge the McCanns with a crime quite as heinous as being involved in the death of their own child then surely a high standard of proof will be required. Without this hard evidence then a case based primarily on circumstantial 'evidence' will probably be rejected by any British jury on the grounds of 'reasonable doubt' - and quite right too.

 

In reality The Crown Prosecution Service only bring cases when they feel that there is a good chance of a conviction - it seems to me that the fact that the McCann's have not been charged in this matter (thus far anyway) speaks volumes about the real strength (or otherwise) of the case against them.

Yes, yes, yes but it is a conspiracy that goes to the very top of the British establishment and everything and no mistake.

 

You can't argue with a four hour video made by a man who thinks it's libel to say the 7/7 attacks were NOT faked.

[aintforever]

In that case you'll love his no planes hit twin towers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So or how the Tavistock Institute (a tiny UK charity) have "control of art, music, drugs and hence the masses". The guy is a 24 carat fruit loop, much funnier than Pap, who is just a credulous follower.

 

Thanks for that, saved me wasting 4 hours of my life watching the other one. 5 mins of the WTC one and it's confirmed he's a nutjob.

[pap]

It's a old legal principle that an absence of evidence my no means amounts to evidence of absence. The suggestion that no evidence can be found to support the abduction theory does not itself prove that this little girl was not abducted. Far from it, given the evidence that the crime scene seems to have been seriously compromised by any modern UK forensic investigation standard.

 

More than that, it seems to me that if you take a microscope and look long and hard enough into the life of virtually any adult Human Being on this planet then I guarantee you that some sort of 'dirt' will inevitably be found on them. In the same manner the closer you look into any complex and disputed incident, such as this tragic matter (or the death of JFK for instance), then the more minor inconsistencies and misunderstandings that are bound to arise. It is a relatively simple matter for any clever writer to elevate these apparent discrepancies and make more of them than they really merit.

 

To charge the McCanns with a crime quite as heinous as being involved in the death of their own child then surely a high standard of proof will be required. Without this hard evidence then a case based primarily on circumstantial 'evidence' will probably be rejected by any British jury on the grounds of 'reasonable doubt' - and quite right too.

 

In reality The Crown Prosecution Service only bring cases when they feel that there is a good chance of a conviction - it seems to me that the fact that the McCann's have not been charged in this matter (thus far anyway) speaks volumes about the real strength (or otherwise) of the case against them.

 

Sir is to be commended for at least expressing an opinion on the argument, even if I don't agree with that opinion. High ground noted.

 

I can't agree because we're not talking about circumstantial evidence. We're talking about evidence that if diligently pursued, would have them up in front of a jury trial. That's the real problem with this case; due process hasn't taken place. The Portuguese fancied the McCanns big time for being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance. The UK government and media both played a part in wrecking any chance the Portuguese cops might have had of getting to a resolution. The government appointed their head of media monitoring as the McCanns advisers, the media did everything they could to portray the Portuguese authorities as bumbling idiots.

 

The contradictions in stories, either different people giving different versions of the same events, or worse, one person completely altering their version of events to fit later facts, is something that any competent detective would have ripped through, if of course, those questions had been answered.

 

The British sniffer dogs led by a British expert who now works for US authorities flies right in the face of the bumbling Portuguese plod meme. It's some of the strongest evidence indicating Madeleine may have died in the apartment, proven reliable in countless cases. Gerry McCann gets to tell the whole world that it's unreliable, based on a 1976 murder case in which sniffer dogs reacted, but a judge ruled the evidence out. No-one mentions that Zapata, the guy accused, later confessed and that the sniffer dogs were bang on.

 

The problem is not the weight of evidence. It's that no-one has been charged, due process hasn't happened, no trial and no closure. Announcement after announcement has been made about possible sightings, arrests or breakthroughs in the case. Nothing has come of any of it, because in my opinion, someone made a political decision that nothing would. They were given the chief spinner, spirited out of Portugal quick-smart, the case transferred to Leicester, when all talk of the McCanns being suspects vanished. It's funny; zero evidence for abduction and every newspaper story runs with that as a point of truth. Lots of evidence implicating the McCanns, yet they're never mentioned as suspects.

 

It's spin versus evidence. Spin's winning.

[pap]

Where do you stand on the 'Jesus was an Egyptian Pharoah who married his sister' one Pap?

 

Where do you stand on Internet dating, Tim?

[CB Fry]

Thanks for that, saved me wasting 4 hours of my life watching the other one. 5 mins of the WTC one and it's confirmed he's a nutjob.

I did about six minutes.

 

I liked the bit when, while trying to sound, like, all scientific when analysing the trajectory of "the ball" he decided to say "so to start with, I've made a couple of assumptions"

 

Yes mate. You have. You definitely have.

[buctootim]

Where do you stand on Internet dating, Tim?

 

It works well. Don't dodge the question though, it makes you look evasive. About the Pharoahs.

[pap]

It works well. Don't dodge the question though, it makes you look evasive. About the Pharoahs.

I haven't watched it, so I don't have the luxury of an opinion.

 

I'm not a big believer in any kind of religion, but authors have tackled the origins of Christianity and found parallels with earlier myths. I think the tenets and messages of Christianity are pretty sound, but the human implementation, especially when prosecuted from power centres like Rome, was often just a means of empire building and control, working all the way from the illiterate peasant that didn't and couldn't know any better to excommunicated heads of state.

 

Did you like it?

[aintforever]

The problem is not the weight of evidence. It's that no-one has been charged

 

You need sufficient evidence to charge someone. That's how it works.

 

If you need any more information from the real world feel free to ask.

[pap]

It's refreshing to see so many other conspiracy theories referenced in one thread. Some would be cynical, casting such remarks aside as transparent attempts at kicking the crap about. Not I. There is an inherent honesty in their positions that makes me expect a flourish of passionately argued new threads reflecting their new found interest. The scope of all of these topics are far too broad to be accommodated in the McCann thread.

 

It'd be a shame if such blistering content were improperly archived. Think of the beleaguered curator of national digital treasures in two centuries time.

[buctootim]

If you need any more information from the real world feel free to ask.

 

You should watch this one. Its a cracker.

 

http://blip.tv/richplanet/the-richplanet-starship-tony-kilvert-4894504

[CB Fry]

It's refreshing to see so many other conspiracy theories referenced in one thread. Some would be cynical, casting such remarks aside as transparent attempts at kicking the crap about. Not I. There is an inherent honesty in their positions that makes me expect a flourish of passionately argued new threads reflecting their new found interest. The scope of all of these topics are far too broad to be accommodated in the McCann thread.

 

It'd be a shame if such blistering content were improperly archived. Think of the beleaguered curator of national digital treasures in two centuries time.

I'm definitely telling my grandchildren about my last three posts.

[buctootim]

It's refreshing to see so many other conspiracy theories referenced in one thread. Some would be cynical, casting such remarks aside as transparent attempts at kicking the crap about.

 

You told us Hall was reputable source who put together a thorough balanced assessment of the McCann case that we should devote 4 hours to. Id have thought his programmes on Ananarchians planting the human race on Earth to do their dirty work (hiding the Holy Grail) was relevant info.

Edited 9 October, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

I'm definitely telling my grandchildren about my last three posts.

If they speak to you

[pap]

You told us Hall was reputable source who put together a thorough balanced assessment of the McCann case that we should devote 4 hours to. Id have thought his programmes on Ananarchians planting the human race on Earth to do their dirty work (hiding the Holy Grail) was relevant info.

A film you haven't watched but still feel qualified to comment on anyway? That is an AWESOME power. What's the new Star Wars like?

[buctootim]

A film you haven't watched but still feel qualified to comment on anyway? That is an AWESOME power. What's the new Star Wars like?

 

Au contraire Ive got it on now. Its way better than Porridge repeats.

[CB Fry]

You told us Hall was reputable source who put together a thorough balanced assessment of the McCann case that we should devote 4 hours to. Id have thought his programmes on Ananarchians planting the human race on Earth to do their dirty work (hiding the Holy Grail) was relevant info.

That website, I imagine, must rank alongside the 9/11 "Great Resource" forum (In summary: "look at these weeping firemen in this clip, what fu cking sh it actors" ) in the pantheon of Paps interwebworld of open minded free thinking evidence based analysis.

[Gemmel]

He looks like Chris Waddle

[Goatboy]

He looks like Chris Waddle

 

Just as 'off target'.

[sadoldgit]

Thanks for that, saved me wasting 4 hours of my life watching the other one. 5 mins of the WTC one and it's confirmed he's a nutjob.

 

I haven't watched any other of his films but I have watched these and they are well made. I will say again, if you have an interest in the McCanns case this is well worth watching. Even if you just watch the one with the sniffer dogs. (Even a broken clock is right twice a day so give it a chance).

[aintforever]

I haven't watched any other of his films but I have watched these and they are well made. I will say again, if you have an interest in the McCanns case this is well worth watching. Even if you just watch the one with the sniffer dogs. (Even a broken clock is right twice a day so give it a chance).

 

I will give it a go if I have time but I got 30mins or so into the first one and wasn't that impressed. Some nonsense about the shutter to the bed room and this idiot actually quoted what friends of the McCanns who weren't even there had said to papers over here as some sort of evidence. the next bit appears to be about what is in the media which from a detective's point of view is pretty much an irrelevance.

 

I will watch the dog one but I've read up on that before and cadaver dogs bark at all sorts, from an old w@nkstain upwards.

[pap]

I will give it a go if I have time but I got 30mins or so into the first one and wasn't that impressed. Some nonsense about the shutter to the bed room and this idiot actually quoted what friends of the McCanns who weren't even there had said to papers over here as some sort of evidence. the next bit appears to be about what is in the media which from a detective's point of view is pretty much an irrelevance.

 

I will watch the dog one but I've read up on that before and cadaver dogs bark at all sorts, from an old w@nkstain upwards.

It's relevant because she phoned friends and family individually, telling them all something that was not true.

 

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id31.html

 

What have you read on dog evidence?