General Chat

As far as I know, a person is still innocent until proven guilty in this country.

What you see on the TV or read in the press or on the internet, is not always the truth; it can be drastically distorted & things sometimes are not quite what they appear to be.

With that in mind, whatever our personal opinions are, I think it is not fair to hang them in public when the evidence has not even been shown & proved them guilty.

Many seem to be wanting to have it all ways with the sniffer dog - it is claimed that it can detect the nrief presence of contact with "death" at some time a long time ago. It is even suggested that the dog's reaction can be used as evidence in court which seems laughable to me.

It is an indication of an area for further investigation. If it is so sensitive then anyone who has been in contact with death and in contact with the car could contaminate it. It is a hire car so could have been anywhere in the period before they hired it, the police have presumably searched it and many people have travelled in the car.

A number of news sources are quoting the forensic lab as saying the DNA found was a very degraded so could not be used as evidence. I can't understand how they can distinguish which family member a poor quality partial DNA sample came from - parents, Madeleine or twins.

There was the case shown in a BBC1 documentary a couple of years ago where a couple were very nearly charged with the murder of a baby found in a concrete block because of a DNA match between the baby and the wife. Fortunately she was able to prove her innocence and it turned out that her mother probably committed the murder. This shows the difficulty with DNA matches within a family.

MB

Good to see you Kris,

I am utterly bewildered by all this as most people are. I have some theories but dont wish to post them.

Could anyone who has a theory please PM me,

Caz xxx

God bless Maddie x

hi kris,nice to see you posting.i think thiongs are not always as they seem.i spoke to a friend of mine who came to see me today,shes a police officer.and a good one.
and we watched the mc canns getting off the plane at donnington.she said why wont she look into the cameras.shes hiding behind the child.it spooked her.and again she said had it been joe bloggs on a council estate she would have been slated.so i think i,ll go with me mate on this.xxx

Just a little aside ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I have today been viewing two prominent US news channels.

And they are mercilessly ridiculing the Portuguese police investigations.

Their line of questioning questions the practicalities of the PJ's apparent version of events. In short .... it has a thousand and one leaking holes !

The UK press has so far been most hesitant in embarrassing the conduct of the investigation. But now that the McCanns are home there is an expectation that the gloves will be off !

And the simple fact is that there is not one ounce of evidence that can be levelled against anyone !

Mmmmm - well the USA way of investigating, Great model. Now let me see - who killed JFK?

Jay

I wont put here what i feel, but i have signed the petition and passed it onto my all my contacts. Donna

exactly jay.......you took the words from my mouth xx

hi kris,
glad to see you posting this, like you ive kept my distance now on this, hope whatever the truth is we know soon for the sake of madeleine..
take care.
nite.
kaz xxxx

We can all find what we are looking for in the news, I include myself in that statement.

I try to get information from press in as many countries as possible. Simply because I do not think we have unbiased reporting in the UK.

Yes, perhaps the PJ made errors, the British police do too. I will wait and see what evidence they have and have not revealved and what the new search brings this week.

Sue

I think we need to be aware that what has been said in defence of the Mccanns - ie........

*No-one knows what happened, give them the benefit of the doubt etc*

The same theory should be applied to the Portugese Police who, by law cannot state exactly what evidence they hold.

Yes there may have been leaks. From both sides and *sources close to* etc. That's only natural under the circumstances.

But I refuse to take the attitude that just because the Portugese do things differently that means they are somehow wrong or (as acccused by Philamena Mccann) - corrupt.

As I said the other night. If I were Portugese I would find the attitude of our press offensive. Similarly I would be disgusted if I were a Portugese tax payer who had funded their BEST efforts in solving this crime.

British police have been heavily involved for a while now.It's with OUR forensic help that this investigation took the route it has.

Are Scotland yard also corrupt? And the Birmingham Laboratory? NO. I very much doubt it.

I've actually been ashamed in the last couple of days due to the arrogance of some people in this country and their attitude towards the Portugese media and Police.

Benefit of the doubt works both ways.xx

hi sue,i concider our country to have a legal ststem that sucks.its a joke.i think portugal have a good point of not talking to the public,until such times as.
lets hope we have something soon.
those children should never have been left end ofxx

oh and dont forget AMERICA has been sent samplesxx

Im just sitting back and watching the pendulem swing.

Public opinion - judging soley by the threads and posts over the last few days has taken three major swings.

First of all the majority were all shocked and supportive.

Last week the backlash kicked in especially since they were made suspects and the tide turned.

Today now they are home it appears to be shifting in their support again.

I for one think they are responcible for that poor missing child. If for no other reason than simply by neglect. That should not go unforgotton and should be punished as anyone else would be - not as someone else put it cannonised.

I hate to get anyone's back up ..................... but maybe comparisons with events over forty years ago might be stretching reasoned argument a little too far.

Nevertheless, the simple fact is that the Portuguese police are making total fools of themselves.

How can they possibly offer the McCanns a plea bargain ................. yet not have sufficient evidence to charge them with even the slightest offence or demand that they not be allowed to leave the country ?

They did not offer a plea bargain as stated by their Portugese lawyer today.

This was used by Philomena to turn Joe Public against the PJ intimating that they wanted closure to this any which way

I have my opinions on this one, but will keep tight lipped , but one thing I cannot understand being a mother of 2 girls age 5 and 2, you go on a family holiday to be a family, that's it, you have children and from the moment you conceive you sacrifice everything for that child. You can still have a life, but you do not leave 3 toddlers in an apartment on their own whilst you have dinner, they are intelligent people, they are doctors, I'm sorry but whatever has happened to poor maddie god bless her, if she was supervised there would be no questions to be answered. I sit on my garden in the summer and my garden is long, not a football field and my 2 year old sleeps at the front of the house, and whilst I'm on my own property I worry about my girls sleeping in bed.

The questions will be answered eventually and we can only make our opinions from the press.

Amanda

The plea bargain is a marvellous piece of spin.

Confessions would have to be to a judge - a confession gained from the PJ holds absolutely no water whatsoever. So it would be a pointless exercise. It's a panel of judges that decide sentences in Portugal. NOT the police.xx

I believe it's the UK press who are looking like fools.xx

Amanda,

Lots of us have said exactly the same.

Sue

Extract from the Times Online

Mr and Mrs McCann yesterday consulted Michael Caplan, QC, an expert in international criminal law who prevented the extradition of General Pinochet, the former President of Chile, to Spain. They also spoke to Angus McBride, a partner in the international law firm Kingsley Napley.

A friend of the family said: “They have met with them to obtain further advice on their return to the UK. It is envisaged their role will be to provide UK legal advice and to assist and liaise with their lawyers.”

I sincerely hope the costs are not expected from the fund which should only be of benefit to missing children investigations and not the defence of suspects.

Sue