said it before, i haven't bought a rag since i had my own kids, their full of sh.t, lies and depression.
Peoples reliance on 'Google' for their 'facts' astounds me. People far too readily accept what they read without questioning the veracity of whatever it is, just because its 'published'. Hearsay and mistruths are accepted and freely stated as 'facts' when they are nothing of the sort. They are just idle gossip and often malicious for no other reason than scurrilous rumour mongering. Yes its a mystery, but why is it always little green men or some other outlandish possibility other than the normal that is reported? Let the police do their work, find out the truth and go from there.
that's why I did not quote any of them, people can read the for themselves and make up their own minds however where there is smoke there is usually fire
that's because electricity is transferred through the wires via smoke and when the wires break the smoke escapes and the electrics die
Impossible to form an opinion as all we get is snippets of information. But how you would just leave your 3 yr old (and younger brother?) unsupervised in the room whilst going for dinner is beyond my comprehension.
And, of course, The Daily Express (with their weekly "update" on the McCanns ) have not made profit out this case at all? (Alternated with their latest made up rubbish about Princess Dianna, obviously). And are the Portuguese police any more inept, corrupt or just plain incompetent than their British colleagues? From my experience I'd have to say that there's not much to choose between them...
Whilst I accept that sometimes where there is smoke there is fire, it is not a universal truth. Its a dangerous thing to assume such without any evidence to support it. Furthermore you are applying some factor of guilt upon them without trial or peer review. If you cannot see the wrong in this approach then Justice will never be done and kangaroo courts occupied by other old gossipers will flourish. There is a procedure known as 'Law'. Which was hard won and to blithely disregard it is short sighted. Now assume someone accused you of a heinous crime, using only a mistaken piece of internet gossip as a basis for that accusation. You are completely innocent and have no connection at all to this crime. Yet others, such as you, have taken this to the nth degree of slander and gossip. Imagine the difficulty you would have overcoming this, even after the true culprit had been apprehended and sentenced. All because of the smoke and fire assumption. There will always be someone who will still say it was you, even after the culprit is doing his life sentence. It is always, always better to adopt the 'open mind' approach. Sure read what is said but do not fall into the trap of believing everything or something due to some coincidence, happenstance or other vague association. Let the courts do that. Otherwise you just become some gossipers patsy spreading insinuation on their behalf. You become a puppet. After all are you fully aware of all the facts and forensics? Nope you are not. Neither are you qualified to make the assumptions. (Unless of course by chance you are) I just think its dodgy ground Ken. Best avoided. No offense meant, implied or inferred.
I've read a bit of the Portuguese coppers book,and he makes some interesting statements.He doesn't come across as incompetent,in fact he sounds really pissed off that the media muddied the waters,and that the British police,(despite an agreement to share everything relevant to the case),didn't reveal many relevant facts to the Portuguese.He was a long-serving senior Detective with many successful cases investigated,and he got turfed off by political shenanigans........and although I don't have much time for,"citizens in uniform",I think the great majority are pretty honest,including him. Among other things,he states that the McCanns refused to answer a large number of questions,(I think it was forty-plus?),with KM admitting that by not answering she was almost certainly hindering the investigation,but still refusing to answer.Hardly the actions of someone desperate to get their child back,but not an admission of guilt either As others have opined,I doubt they would have have had such a positive write-up in the press if they were council house dwellers,and I think a lot of folk consider that unfair....the reason Journalists are a dying breed is because many colour their reports with their opinion,instead of reporting the facts. So if none of us are in full possession of the facts,the McCanns could be innocent....or guilty...
Until 'Facts' arrive to substantiate any claims, they are innocent of any charges. This does not preclude them from investigation. It may or may not be that they do have some involvement, but do not mistake speculation for evidence. Its all speculative.
Everything is speculative...the reason that Judges are called,"Judges",is because they make a judgment based on the evidence put before them.Sometimes they get it spectacularly wrong,and innocent lives are ruined as a result. I don't care for the McCanns particularly,they seem particularly cold and uncaring to me.And it doesn't surprise me that they left their little kids on their own. But it does annoy me that the majority of the media have decided they are innocent,and allow them to trumpet their hurt feelings whenever anyone has the temerity to voice an opinion that doesn't paint them as middle-class medical saints who are completely without fault. If the Portuguese policeman is to be believed,there are definitely things that don't add up,that there are things that should have been followed up and haven't been,and witnesses that should have been interviewed but haven't. Thats apart from KMs refusal to answer questions. I hope they haven't had anything to do with it. I hope the little kid turns up safe and sound But ultimately,if they had been with their kids,or had spent the few quid to put into the creche,this wouldn't have happened.They know that,and they know that the rest of the world knows that. If they took some responsibility for whats happened,I'd have more time for them
Why would anyone refuse to answer questions? Can see why you'd get pissed at some of the questions, they have to ask but doesnt mean you have to like it, but why refuse?! Confused of lower middle England
As we don't know which questions KM refused to answer it's impossible to deduce anything from them. Maybe the unanswered questions related to their sex life, which the Mcanns would not like to share with the Police or anyone else. That's just one of many possibilities, I'm guessing as I haven't been questioned myself and the Police, both British and Portuguese would be asking anything that comes in to their heads to find the tiniest scintilla of a motive to pin the charge on the statistically most likely perpetrators of the child's disappearance. If the parents were only 50 metres from the children that's hardly unattended. Whatever the truth it's a sad story and has effected 1000s of parents decisions on just how far away they are prepared to be away from their children. I for one have very little respect for journalists, lawyers and Police, in my simplistic view you earn respect. So I would respect the view of a Police motorcyclist who has vastly more experience riding than I will ever have, but less for a "panda" car driver.
These are the questions: 1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch? 2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer) 3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? 4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa? 5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance? 6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted? 7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment. 8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on? 9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words? 10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’? 11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah? 12. Who contacted the authorities? 13. Who took place in the searches? 14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes? 15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance? 16. What does 'we let her down' mean? 17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child? 18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? 19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? 20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? 21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? 22. Did you call Sky News? 23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? 24. Did you ask for a priest? 25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means? 26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving? 27. What was your behaviour that night? 28. Did you manage to sleep? 29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? 30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like? 31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? 32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister? 33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? 34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? 35. What is your medical specialty? 36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? 37. Did you work every day? 38. At a certain point you stopped working, why? 39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? 40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy? 41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative? 42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? 43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had? 44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had? 45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had? 46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had? 47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had? 48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance? Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz37hge7sN3 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Nonsense. They could've been on the other side of the world for all intents and purposes, the distance between them is irrelevant. If they were attended to this would obviously never had happened.
That entirely is the crux of the problem, irresponsible parents who did not take proper responsibility for their children
Seem reasonable and objective questions to me, that i like to think I would answer even if it pissed me off as they clearly assume i did it. They always assume the family did it.
What's the source of these questions? Could it be she had already been asked the same question in a different guise 5 time before already and was getting tired of it? Without answers to this, that list of '48 questions' is meaningless
