Madeleine McCann

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

This documentary is definately achieving its goal , so many on here saying things like, " I thought the McCann's were involved but now I don't after watching this" good PR.

You mean they've actually explained the series of events factually, rather than conspiracy sites, red top rags and youtube videos with red lines. Leading people to have a more informed opinion on what happend.

[Voll Blau]

3 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

This documentary is definately achieving its goal , so many on here saying things like, " I thought the McCann's were involved but now I don't after watching this" good PR.

You've not actually watched it, have you?

 

 

Really hoping the pizza shop owner's sighting of the couple running across the road with a toddler is her. At least then she may be living a relatively normal life somewhere. Suspect, sadly, that's not the case though.

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

You mean they've actually explained the series of events factually, rather than conspiracy sites, red top rags and youtube videos with red lines. Leading people to have a more informed opinion on what happend.

There was nothing in the documentary that wasn’t already known. There was lots of things that are known that weren’t in the documentary however. Similar to making a murderer, it’s clear that the documentaries aim is to pedal the abduction story. By spending a bunch of time explaining why they were under suspicion and then lots more explaining why that is nonsense is a very good technique. I personally haven’t made my mind up but for me, more so than the cadaver dogs, their story of the night is what makes me highly suspicious and I don’t think the documentary did enough to explain this. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

There was nothing in the documentary that wasn’t already known. There was lots of things that are known that weren’t in the documentary however. Similar to making a murderer, it’s clear that the documentaries aim is to pedal the abduction story. By spending a bunch of time explaining why they were under suspicion and then lots more explaining why that is nonsense is a very good technique. I personally haven’t made my mind up but for me, more so than the cadaver dogs, their story of the night is what makes me highly suspicious and I don’t think the documentary did enough to explain this. 

Applying Ockham's Razor, I would say they were trying to cover up the fact they'd been bad parents and could face neglect charges, other than anything more sinister. 

 

If you were in the state they were in that night, I imagine you'd have plenty of inconsistencies in your story as you wouldn't be thinking straight at all - and you might then panic, for the reasons I've mentioned, and attempt to straighten your story out. The fact that we've yet to see a convincing motive all these years later speaks volumes.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

Applying Ockham's Razor, I would say they were trying to cover up the fact they'd been bad parents and could face neglect charges, other than anything more sinister. 

 

If you were in the state they were in that night, I imagine you'd have plenty of inconsistencies in your story as you wouldn't be thinking straight at all - and you might then panic, for the reasons I've mentioned, and attempt to straighten your story out. The fact that we've yet to see a convincing motive all these years later speaks volumes.

Firstly, accidental death which is the predominant theory doesn’t require a motive unless you are suggesting they need a motive to cover it up? 

 

Secondly, the inconsistencies are not just from them but some of their friends, Jane Tanner sighting is the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard. 

 

I don’t know whether they were involved but for me, their account of that night has never been factual.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

Firstly, accidental death which is the predominant theory doesn’t require a motive unless you are suggesting they need a motive to cover it up? 

 

Secondly, the inconsistencies are not just from them but some of their friends, Jane Tanner sighting is the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard. 

 

I don’t know whether they were involved but for me, their account of that night has never been factual.

Ah right, thought you were referring to the murder theory. Apologies.

 

I'd never dispute that the actions of they and their friends have been dodgy, but I'm more inclined to believe that that's down to wanting to avoid the blame for what most would agree is shit parenting which led to this, rather than knowing more than they've let on. I think someone's conscience would have pricked them enough to have blabbed by now if the latter were true.

[Babylon]

18 minutes ago, Benguin said:

There was nothing in the documentary that wasn’t already known. There was lots of things that are known that weren’t in the documentary however. Similar to making a murderer, it’s clear that the documentaries aim is to pedal the abduction story. By spending a bunch of time explaining why they were under suspicion and then lots more explaining why that is nonsense is a very good technique. I personally haven’t made my mind up but for me, more so than the cadaver dogs, their story of the night is what makes me highly suspicious and I don’t think the documentary did enough to explain this. 

There was a lot in the documentary that isn't said or repeated by most people online when talking about the case though. I learnt quite a bit, not in terms of new information particularly, but in terms of highlighting a correcting things that aren't true but out there.

[joachim1965]

As has been said before, I do not think they intentionally killed Madeleine,  I believe she was sedated and died accidentally,  the mccanns and associates have conspired to cover this up, there are so many inconsistencies in the account of events by themselves and their friends.

We may never know the truth.

[Babylon]

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Secondly, the inconsistencies are not just from them but some of their friends, Jane Tanner sighting is the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they actually find and speak to the person who it's believed she saw? He confirmed he was wearing exactly the clothes described, was there at pretty much that exact moment carrying his daughter from the kids club up the road.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

As has been said before, I do not think they intentionally killed Madeleine,  I believe she was sedated and died accidentally,  the mccanns and associates have conspired to cover this up, there are so many inconsistencies in the account of events by themselves and their friends.

We may never know the truth.

One of my pet hates is conspiracy theorists and how they delve for inconsistencies as though they prove anything.

 

If you go out with friends for meal on holiday, have a few glasses of wine, then your daughter went missing sending your world into melt down, didn't sleep for 48 hours and then were expected to give an exact, minute by minute, consistent story of exactly what happened. Not only that but everyone then has to give an exact replica of that story when questioned time and time again over months and years, there would be more holes in the story than Fred Wests garden.

 

I couldn't even tell you what time I went to bed last night, let alone give a breakdown of my whole night, with precise details of what time I went toilet, what time I had dinner, what I or others were wearing blah blah.

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Firstly, accidental death which is the predominant theory doesn’t require a motive unless you are suggesting they need a motive to cover it up? 

 

Secondly, the inconsistencies are not just from them but some of their friends, Jane Tanner sighting is the biggest load of horseshit I’ve heard. 

 

I don’t know whether they were involved but for me, their account of that night has never been factual.

I thought the jane tanner sighting had been verified to be a british holiday maker carrying his daughter back from a creche.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

I thought the jane tanner sighting had been verified to be a british holiday maker carrying his daughter back from a creche.

It has...

[joachim1965]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

One of my pet hates is conspiracy theorists and how they delve for inconsistencies as though they prove anything.

 

If you go out with friends for meal on holiday, have a few glasses of wine, then your daughter went missing sending your world into melt down, didn't sleep for 48 hours and then were expected to give an exact, minute by minute, consistent story of exactly what happened. Not only that but everyone then has to give an exact replica of that story when questioned time and time again over months and years, there would be more holes in the story than Fred Wests garden.

 

I couldn't even tell you what time I went to bed last night, let alone give a breakdown of my whole night, with precise details of what time I went toilet, what time I had dinner, what I or others were wearing blah blah.

Ok mate, she was abducted and everyone is telling the truth, all we have to do now is work out where she is.

Must not question anything.

[stripeyfox]

2 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Ok mate, she was abducted and everyone is telling the truth, all we have to do now is work out where she is.

Must not question anything.

This. In a nutshell

 

[bovril]

The charity collectors seemed like a lead that should have been followed up earlier. Though that may have been because of the spooky music and the fact they looked a bit dodgy like. 

[bovril]

Also has to be the documentary with the most Leicester accents ever. Even half the Brits they interviewed from Praia de Luz seemed to be from Lestuh. 

[Babylon]

11 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

Ok mate, she was abducted and everyone is telling the truth, all we have to do now is work out where she is.

Must not question anything.

Nobody is saying you don't question things, but inconsistencies are going to happen in any group of people trying to recount a traumatic event to the smallest detail, when they've probably also had a few wines. Inconsistencies are not proof of anything in themselves.

[whoareyaaa]

she could quite simply have hit her head on something and the parents panicked.

 

or she was simply Adducted.

 

Who knows?! the McCans for certain.

[joachim1965]

 

42 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Nobody is saying you don't question things, but inconsistencies are going to happen in any group of people trying to recount a traumatic event to the smallest detail, when they've probably also had a few wines. Inconsistencies are not proof of anything in themselves.

I hear what you are saying and I respect the fact that your opinion differs from mine, it doesn't mean either of us are right or wrong. The only people who truly know what happened that night are the abductor (if there was one) or in the absence of an abductor , Kate and Gerry McCann,  everything else is pure guesswork.

[Wymsey]

It does seem like the press etc are siding with the McCann's, whilst some of the general feeling amongst us looking at the situation as a general reader are edging towards the other way..

It has also appeared and still does appear that when as if somebody believes her parents were involved with it, others disagreeing with it get the hump about the hearsay (like theirs is, as well) and blame them for disrespect/lack of sympathy.

Edited 26 March 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[The Horse's Mouth]

Thought the doc was definitely leaning to a pro McCann suggestion and that's probably right if you're making something like this, to keep to the evidence we have. But it did feel, like we need a few heads with different opinions majority being interviewed were completely behind them, which is why i found it strange the McCanns being against it and not wanting to get involved. My opinion has and probably always will be unless new evidence came to light, that there was an accident, mccanns panicked not wanting to be known as child killers. The kids not making a single peep throughout the night, indicates that they were probably sedated. The dog thing is one I can't get where to side with, we know the DNA obtained is not enough and cant be considered Maddies but when the dog barks that's to indicate that there's been a dead body. I think it would be impossible for the McCanns to have disposed of the body so long after the "abduction" when there moves were being monitored 24/7, however their resistance to wanting the tests to be conducted do come across as suspicious. I've always thought Kate's obstruction of the investigation in particular, looks pretty damning in their guilt, especially when you see the questions she refused to answer. The little evidence we have, mostly proves to me that this wasn't and abduction in my opinion but at the end of the day, this will always just be people arguing about their "hunches" because the evidence quite shallow and can be manipulated in any direction, is sad we'll probably never know what truly happened to her and that's the problem, young little girl with her life ahead of her is most likely dead.

[joachim1965]

Didn't  the dna show 15 out of 19 markers which is considered to be a match ?

[Stinkenzo]

9 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

This documentary is definately achieving its goal , so many on here saying things like, " I thought the McCann's were involved but now I don't after watching this" good PR.

Dont worry there will always be people like yourself who will never be convinced otherwise

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 hour ago, joachim1965 said:

Didn't  the dna show 15 out of 19 markers which is considered to be a match ?

aye, but it's speculated as to whether it could've been either kate and gerry's because madeline will have the same sort of DNA, as to why it's in boot is a mystery but even then I don't think the DNA can really prove anything unfortunately. 

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

 

I hear what you are saying and I respect the fact that your opinion differs from mine, it doesn't mean either of us are right or wrong. The only people who truly know what happened that night are the abductor (if there was one) or in the absence of an abductor , Kate and Gerry McCann,  everything else is pure guesswork.

I'm not saying they did it or not, just that inconsistencies in stories happen and don't prove anything, that is fact and not opinion.