Madeleine McCann's parents

Katie Hopkins said:
Last year, a father of a two year old was arrested and prosecuted after leaving his daughter in a car for two minutes whilst he ran in to a chemist to buy Calpol.
Click to expand...

Was this in Portugal Kate? You do know it happened in another country?

Katie Hopkins said:
There were 48 police questions Kate McCann refused to answer after Maddie was gone. Surely if you wanted to find your child you would give anything, tell police everything you knew, offer anything you had?
Click to expand...

You'd think she would do her homework.

After she was taken in for questioning on 7 September, Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the Portuguese police.

This is correct. It should be noted however, that Kate McCann spent a full day answering questions at the police station on 6th September, when she was interviewed as a witness. Under Portuguese law, witnesses do not have the right to remain silent.

So viewers, nobody likes to mention she had a full day of answering all the same questions but on the following day her Lawyer advised her to stay silent because she was now an Arguido.
The Police already had their answers.


The rest of the article is OK though.
 
Rifte said:
Questions based around factual information. Irrespective if she should have answered the questions or not, the point remains that some of her and her husband's actions bearing in mind the circumstances are odd to say the least.

The questions are only based upon what actually happened, or what they actually did.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. You can find out quite a lot from published police reports.

So not only are the questions merely declarations of guilt dressed up as questions, they're also based on assuming things are true that aren't true or which are deliberately misrepresented. They're on a par with the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?", but worse because they're a bit more subtle.

Random examples off the top of my head:

She washed the cuddly toy 70 days later, long after it had been examined and returned and long after it would have been any use for any investigation. She'd been carrying it around all that time, so it would have been completely contaminated in terms of evidence. It wouldn't have smelt of Madeleine and it was dirty. People often wash small cuddly toys.

The only DNA found was that of one of the police officers who had been collecting evidence.

Etc, etc.
 
Its always been about the dogs for me. They found her DNA in a hire car, which was hired after Maddy went missing, and some couple made an efit of Gerry as the person they say carrying a limp body towards the beach.

Messed up.
 
I feel this is like Jack The Ripper. We'll never know what happened. Too much time has passed. She's either dead or living in some distant country with whoever took her.
 
Django x2 said:
Its always been about the dogs for me. They found her DNA in a hire car, which was hired after Maddy went missing, and some couple made an efit of Gerry as the person they say carrying a limp body towards the beach.

Messed up.
Click to expand...

Dogs have a 20-40% success rate - they alert to false positives more often than they are correct. That's for the best dogs properly trained. They are extremely sensitive and lack the understanding to discriminate between sources. So, for example, a dog trained to detect human blood will alert to the remains of a drop of blood from when someone grazed or cut themself months earlier. Or years earlier. Corpse detection is even less reliable. For example, one of the two dogs used in the Madeleine case alerted to human remains that were dated to the 16th century. This is why dog findings are not considered evidence either in court or by the police. Maybe in CSI, but not in reality. In reality, they are considered to be a source of possible leads - if a dog alerts at a specific place, it's considered a good spot for people to investigate and possibly find evidence.

Madeleine's DNA was not found in the hire car. What actually happened was that one of the dogs alerted to the boot of the hire car, which was examined in minute detail and all that was found was weak traces of DNA from multiple people none of whom could be identified (at best - the samples from some parts of the trunk weren't even good enough for any DNA to be found). A hire car having traces of DNA from multiple unidentifiable people on it - well, what would you expect from a hire car? Of course it has traces of multiple people.

Even if Madeleine's DNA had been found in the car (which it wasn't), DNA evidence is far less meaningful than it's made out to be on CSI et alia. It doesn't even prove that a person was somewhere. For example, if an item of clothing worn by someone (or something they held or a brush they used, etc, etc) is put somewhere then DNA evidence of that person can be found in that place. Even though they were never there.

The DNA analysis reports are publically available. You can conveniently see them yourself by clicking http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

A photofit that looks like someone (assuming this photofit even exists - much of the stuff written about the case is just made up, like the claim that Madeleine's DNA being found in the car when it wasn't) means very little. A photofit will look like a lot of people even if it is accurate (and human memory very often isn't).

You've been misled.
 
Angilion said:
Dogs have a 20-40% success rate - they alert to false positives more often than they are correct. That's for the best dogs properly trained. They are extremely sensitive and lack the understanding to discriminate between sources. So, for example, a dog trained to detect human blood will alert to the remains of a drop of blood from when someone grazed or cut themself months earlier. Or years earlier. Corpse detection is even less reliable. For example, one of the two dogs used in the Madeleine case alerted to human remains that were dated to the 16th century. This is why dog findings are not considered evidence either in court or by the police. Maybe in CSI, but not in reality. In reality, they are considered to be a source of possible leads - if a dog alerts at a specific place, it's considered a good spot for people to investigate and possibly find evidence.

Madeleine's DNA was not found in the hire car. What actually happened was that one of the dogs alerted to the boot of the hire car, which was examined in minute detail and all that was found was weak traces of DNA from multiple people none of whom could be identified (at best - the samples from some parts of the trunk weren't even good enough for any DNA to be found). A hire car having traces of DNA from multiple unidentifiable people on it - well, what would you expect from a hire car? Of course it has traces of multiple people.

Even if Madeleine's DNA had been found in the car (which it wasn't), DNA evidence is far less meaningful than it's made out to be on CSI et alia. It doesn't even prove that a person was somewhere. For example, if an item of clothing worn by someone (or something they held or a brush they used, etc, etc) is put somewhere then DNA evidence of that person can be found in that place. Even though they were never there.

The DNA analysis reports are publically available. You can conveniently see them yourself by clicking http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

A photofit that looks like someone (assuming this photofit even exists - much of the stuff written about the case is just made up, like the claim that Madeleine's DNA being found in the car when it wasn't) means very little. A photofit will look like a lot of people even if it is accurate (and human memory very often isn't).

You've been misled.
Click to expand...

The DNA was always an interesting one.

This family had been staying in this apartment since Saturday yet not a single item harboured any DNA.

Usually items would be a tooth brush, however apparently all the kids shared a tooth brush (pretty minging considering these are doctors, but each to there own), maybe a pillow case with hair, unfortunately this had been washed and the list goes on.

Gerry McCann had to bring a pillow case from the UK for them to get a DNA sample. Blimey there is being clean but forensically clean is another matter. Even then if you are such a cleaning fanatic would you really let the kids share a tooth brush.

Still in a missing persons case it is always helpful to have a photo for so people know who they are looking for. The photo supplied at the crucial hours after her disappearance was 18 months old, kids change a lot in this time. Still Gerry brings back the last photo from the UK again supposedly taken that Thursday. However the clothing and weather conditions suggest it was taken on the Sunday not the Thursday.

To adapt the photo it has been said that somebody would have needed pretty good photoshop skills. The McCann's neither seem to have displayed these skills.

However the sister Philomena who quickly got involved with her comments on anyone collecting a reward would be a greedy so and so has a husband who was recently exposed for his photoshop skills. He puts his skills to good use on a deviant art website were his fetish is women drowning in water and quicksand.

Truly the more you dig into this case the more peculiar the people who surround it become.

The Scotland Yard investigation has been a joke. They were never allowed to look at the case from the beginning and eliminate all possibilities. however their directive was to 'investigate an abduction as if it had happened in the UK'. Pretty much like saying find a particular pair of shoes in the shoe shop but don't look in the boxes.
 
I cant stand Katy Hopkins but i have to agree with everything she talks about on an emotional level.

Becoming a father myself just over a year ago, I could not imagine losing a child, through fault of my own or otherwise.

Washing the "Cuddle Cat" to me is unfathomable...
 
Musty Pie said:
Washing the "Cuddle Cat" to me is unfathomable...
Click to expand...

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078068/Rebuttal of "Fact" 34

Summary of Verifiable Facts


Kate McCann carried the soft toy "Cuddle Cat" constantly after Madeleine's disappearance and was rarely photographed without it.
She eventually washed the toy on 12th July, 2007 - 70 days after Madeleine disappeared.
She recorded in her diary that she had washed the toy because it had become "filthy" and "smelly."
The sniffer dogs arrived in Praia da Luz on 30th July - 18 days after Kate washed the soft toy.
In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Kate confirmed these details and added that Cuddle Cat was "always" being washed
 
Are they any websites that layout the facts in a logical way?

It seems there is so much cherry picking and misrepresentation from a lot of these sites, it just turns me off wholesale the idea the parents had anything to do with it.
 
MookJong said:
Are they any websites that layout the facts in a logical way?

It seems there is so much cherry picking and misrepresentation from a lot of these sites, it just turns me off wholesale the idea the parents had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Best site is the www.mccannfiles.com . This contains all the official Portugal police documents translated then you can make your own conclusion.

There is a heap of stuff there that has not only not been printed in the press and stuff the press wouldn't dare to publish or they would be Carter-Rucked.

For instance you would never read about the Gasper statements in the national rag.

Statements given about an alleged incident between Gerry and David Payne, one of the Tapas 7. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id236.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom