Jump to content

"The Truth of the Lie" - the McCann case


Recommended Posts

"I celebrate your sense of indignation about a case that's unresolved."

Well I don't think you should. Have a look at the website linked to in an earlier message. While ostensibly there's a lot of factual detail on there, when you delve a little deeper you find some really nasty stuff.

So look here:


And pay attention to the commentary the author makes under the the interviews with Madeline McCann's mother.

Here's one: "there must be serious concern for the safety and welfare of the twins should the McCanns eventually face charges over Madeleine's disappearance."

and here's another

"Why is Kate referring here to murder? Has she made a huge freudian slip?".

Then look at some of the deeply disturbing comments left by readers on the site first linked to and deemed to be a "respected site". http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taper, I understand your disgust with these comments, and I agree.

Did you know 800,000 children go missing in the UK every year?

Fair play, only 115 of these are ?stereotypical? kidnapping. These crimes involve someone the child does not know, or knows only slightly, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently

However, the McCann's child is the only one you know the name of?

When the McCanns chose the publicity route, they need to be aware that some of their behaviour and activity are odd. Refusing to answer police questions until you are 'ready' is odd, especially if you accept that this has endangered your child's life.

I simply cannot find it in myself to feel sorry for them for the negative outcomes of this.

I also can't find it in myself to assume their innocence - I can only presume. I don't feel comfortable with the whole affair, but unlike Sue I've just walked away. That's my failing, not hers.

Anyway, I won't pursue this, just wanted to show some support for an alternative viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Huguenot on tip one. And DJKQ, you're quite right that leaving a child alone is not the same thing as kidnapping a child, but it certainly didn't bloody help did it. Mockney, your examples have nothing to do with an adult placing a child in danger, so they're irrelevant IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you not see that it is not at all edifying to see elements of the public, spurred on by some of the most ammoral tabloids in the country, speculate and point the finger in this unsubstantiated and sometimes rather disgusting way. Look at the sites linked to on this thread. You need a bath after reading them. How does any of this help the course of justice? It doesn't. It's like some sort of sick murder mystery weekend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the only thing the McCann's are guilty of is leaving their child unattended* then I can only imagine the fact they have chosen the publicity route is at least partly related to feelings of guilt at having left her in a position to be kidnapped / worse.

They are not stupid people - they would realise that comments are going to be made about them given the circumstances around Maddie's disappearance, but they made the call it's better than doing nothing. And that means taking the rough with the smooth.

Whether they have given enough consideration to the impact this has on their other children I don't know - am not convinced it's healthy for them. But then none of us know the full picture, only what we see in the media. And too often to me, the media likes a black and white view of the world. The McCanns left their child, therefore they must be all bad.

*Don't get me wrong I was apppalled by that - surely they could have afforded a babysitter? And if they couldn't get one... don't go out. My parents would never have put their social life ahead of my safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice of you to dismiss my friends' deaths as irrelevant there's keef, nice touch.

They are of course very relevant to me, because it actually matters to me.

Which was exactly my point of course, nicely missed by you keef, that this is none of anyone's fucking business.

If Sue had stuck her fucking oar in those situations there would be plenty of people justifiably upset.

I found at the time this story broke, the mawkish messages of support, many of them in is forum, very unsettling at the time. Those taking delight in condemning the McCann, like a mob happy judge jury and executioner were even worse.

I hated myself for briefly being sucked in to the story, but quickly realised it represented all the worst aspects of this country and ourselves, and showed our civility is a paper thin breadth away from turning up to hangings and burning witches frankly.

To be dissecting this years down the line just smacks of beating the shit out of a corpse weeks after it's died. It's really really fucking horrible.

Just let it lie.

The argument that it is somehow public property doesn't detract from the utter tastelessness of it all, in fact just makes those saying it sound even more pathetic, like a Di conspiracy theorist bleating the words 'people's princess' like some sort of mantra as they repeatedly grind the palm of their hand into their groin.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to twist things round there Piers.

You tried to use their deaths to make a point, which I think is irrelevant in this case. I don't think that it was me who was being disrespectful.

I didn't miss your point at all, and I more or less agree with it as it happens. So don't play the drama queen and try to make me out as Mr Nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies, it wasn't meant to come across as dismissive of a loss, I just didn't think the point you were making was really comparrable to this case.

Aaaanyway, sorry if I worded it badly.

For my part, I feel sorry for the Macanns. I don't think they are guilty of anything sinister, and they must feel terrible about leaving the kids alone, and it must be awful just not knowing what happened to their child. I can't though ever understand the decision to leave the kids alone, and I thought the way they were with the press was a bit weird.

I'll bow out now.

And Piers, I hope you do make it out, will be good to have a festive pint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During eleven hours of questioning, Kate McCann exercised her right to remain silent and did not answer 48 specific questions. She answered only one question (the very last one) - was she aware that by maintaining her right to silence she might harm the hunt for Madeleine.

These were 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?

And this is the only question which she answered:

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. ?Yes, if that?s what the investigation thinks.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the whole vigilante hysteria thing, but I have to say that I've gone from someone who didn't really have an opinion to someone who thinks the McCanns may have tried to hide the fact that Madeleine had a fatal accident in the apartment after reading a lot of the evidence that Sue has laid out.

They don't seem to be monsters so I doubt that they would have hurt her deliberately, but I do think given the evidence available that they may have considered that they could lose their positions as doctors and all that would entail if the truth came out and therefore decided that they had to cover her accidental death up.

I think when the evidence is looked at rationally, this seems to be the most plausible explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taper Wrote:


> Guilty as charged then


Mrs McCann had every legal right to remain silent, and quite obviously that does not make her guilty of anything.

However if as she claims there was an abduction, it does seem strange that she would not answer the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mockney piers Wrote:


> Keep rubbing that groin with the base of your hand

> sue....ooooh tapas 11 *sweat sweat* uh uh maddie's

> DNA *grunt*


Why are you being so offensive to me on this thread, mockney?

I have already said that I have an interest in this case, and have had since it was first publicised.

Do you not have interests in things? Is that somehow different, in your superior case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweet Jesus. The links are hopelessly biased and take as their starting point that the McCanns have something to hide. I'm sure if I linked you through to conspiracy sites on MMR, on 9/11, AGM, diana's death, and you didn't read any of the counterveiling evidence you might come to an erroneous conclusion too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Sue has presented NO evidence Impetuous...just a theory presented by a Portuguese Police inspector who worked on the case - who let's not forget was fired as a result. As a theory it's plausible, just like many other theories, including abduction but there is no hard evidence to back up any of those theories and so to conclude anything from it is just assumption. No-one knows what really happened that evening and probably won't until a body is found, if ever.

It's perfectly normal for cases to be closed when they have nowhere further to go and then be re-opened if new evidence comes to light. That is where this case is at.

Thank goodness we do have courts to decide on these things and the days of mob lynching are over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was interested to know how long after a body has died that a cadaver dog can detect them. I found an article in the Independent that states:

"One of the questions surrounding human cadaver dogs is how soon after death they can recognise a corpse, and how long a "fresh" corpse must remain in one place for a dog to detect that it has been there. In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out ? of a line-up of six new carpet squares ? the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.

Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes. The research concluded that cadaver dogs were an "outstanding tool" for crime-scene investigation."

Link to full article here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right about the bias of those sites Taper...none of them take an objective look. Sr Almara is the closest to objective because he is trying to piece together a theory that might make sense from some of the pieces......but it's all circumstantial.

I can totally understand why Mrs McCann would want to beleive in abduction. There is no body and I think any parent would hold out for the hope of finding their child alive rather than accepting she must be dead. That's human instinct. I dont understand why that is so difficult to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • SMBS, but milk and a tbsp of white wine vinegar or lemon juice, stir and wait 5 -10 mins is a valiant sub
    • Jeremiah has been cleaning my windows for 3 years. He does a great job, is friendly and professional and is good at replying to queries. I recommend him. 
    • Hi Sue, Thanks for following this up. I was drawn to the bird because it was all white (as far as I could see) with beautiful blue tailfeathers. It looked domestic rather than wild. I am hoping it might be attracted to the bird feeders again. Next time I'll try to get a photo - too surprised and too quickly gone last time! Best wishes, Ilona
    • 'Today at 6pm we are coming together to link hands all the way around Parliament. Now more than ever, we need to send a powerful message to this new Labour government: to stop arming Israel and to push for an immediate ceasefire. Will you join us? ... Keir Starmer can take active steps to change this today. Instead, his government remains disgracefully silent. Join us at 6pm today to demand that the government stops aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide, and to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Today is only the start. We need to keep ramping up the pressure on our political leaders to ensure they know our mass movement for justice for the Palestinian people is not going away. Next Wednesday 24 July, we will be back in Parliament to hold our first lobby of new and returning MPs. Will you join us to take the demands of our movement directly to your MP? [direct link: https://palestinecampaign.eaction.online/julylobby] ... this evening we need a huge turnout to link hands stretching all the way around Parliament. Please join us at 6pm by Parliament Square to make this a powerful and symbolic action that Keir Starmer cannot ignore. I hope to see you there!   In solidarity,   Celie Campaigns Officer  Palestinian Solidarity Campaign'    
Sign In

Sign In

Or sign in with one of these services

    Search In
  • Create New...