Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

The problem with 3A's

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:37 pm

I've been a member of 3A's for a while now, I originally went there out of curiosity, such was the scandal surrounding that forum. At first I was sceptical, but then I found an amazing source of information about the case, some valid, some not and was pleased to have found it.

After a while though, I became disheartened with the inability of some posters, to look at this without bias. I'm not interested in persecuting the McCanns at all costs, of course whoever is responsible for Madeleine's absence should be punished, but what if it's NOT the McCanns, what if there is an abductor, he/she will get away scott-free and Madeleine will never be found unless we give it our full consideration and that is not a popular view on 3A's.

The truth is, that no one can prove without doubt any of the theories that have been voiced, from abduction to murder, nothing can be proved or disproved at the moment, we can only go from the evidence, of which there is very little, so as far as I can see all options are valid at present and therefore it's only right that we should be allowed to discuss them.

The thing is that there are very few people, that I can see who are prepared to look at the facts from a neutral position and build their opinion based on those facts. What I see is a lot of people who have already decided what happened and are simply looking for things that back their opinion, rather than searching for the truth! I can't do that, I can't cast aside my doubts (either way) just because others are totally convinced of a certain scenario, particularly if there is a possibility that I could be hampering finding the poor kid or causing her parents untold grief on top of what they are already suffering - even if I'm not sure they are?

Undoubtedly there are questions I would liked answered by the McCanns, there are things that seem weird to me, but I feel that a lot of their strange behaviour could be excused by the fact that they feel totally wretched about their not being there at the time and perhaps in their guilt they have acted strangely sometimes and that has been interpreted as guilt for much more sinister actions - but this is totally overlooked by most.

The point being that unless 3A's can spend less time talking about theories that have absolutely no basis in the truth, they will lose what little credability they have left.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:49 am

Hi Sillycat. I have read your comment with great interest and I would put you as being a fence sitter leaning towards anti. Which is fine by me. I have never been a member of the 3A's, and in my view they never had any credability in the first place. As for theories, I don't really have any...except I believe the McCanns to be innocent. Except of course they should never have left the children alone. Unlike many on here I do not believe Madeleine is still alive. If she was still alive I feel sure there would have been a positive sighting by now...after all her face in known all over the world.
As I am sure you already know...this forum is here to support the McCann family until such times as the case of missing Madeleine is solved.
I would be interested to hear your views on the disgraced ex PJ...Amaral, and his handling of the case. Also your views on his book about the case.
I tend to leave the theories to the police and private detectives...after all that is their job.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Pedro Silva on Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:31 am

Until proven otherwise, she is still alive somewhere out there, waiting to be found. We have no evidence otherwise.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by clairesy on Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:36 am

The problem with 3a is quite simple...its still open!!

Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin
avatar
clairesy
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 2698
Age : 32
Location : uk
Registration date : 2008-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by vee8 on Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:57 am

Hi sillycat, as usual a very fair and valid post. No, we don't have any evidence to support any theory. But here's one point of view. supposing, just fora second, Madeleine died as a result of an accident. (I personally discount the overdose idea as it is far to ridiculous to hold water). Why wait till half way through the meal to raise the alarm? Why not wait till the next morning, when there would be less suspicion? If she died as the result of a fall, why not just place her back in bed untill the next day, then return her to the scene of the accident in the morning, and claim she must have had a fall during the night? Why try to hide the body at all? Leaving the body where it is (I apologise for talking like this, about a body, when personally I believe she's alive) would have been far simpler, with no need to find a hiding place, or keep up the pretence of an abduction. No one knows for sure if she is dead or alive, (though I repeat that I believe she is,) but I for one am stone cold certain that she did NOT die in the appartment.
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:59 pm

Clairesy, it's too early in the morning to have me rolling around on the floor laughing!! laffin2


I haven't had my breakfast yet!!

I think the problem with 3A's is that it was alledgedly set up to give 'Joe ordinary person' to have a voice independent from the media. A place where the case could be discussed and debated by ordinary folk without the un reliable newspaper reports. A place where all aspects could be debated.

But, anyone who believed in abduction or that the McCanns do not deserve to be eternally punished for leaving their children alone found themselves 'outed' as not being ordinary people but folk who are working for Team McCann, right wing members, members of the family or members of the Tapas group amongst many others. What we have is far worse than media reports or bias. You cant have a debate on 3A's from a neutral stance without being very careful what you say.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:46 pm

Hi Mum21, Well, I'd consider myself a fence-sitter with anti leanings also, but I suppose it depends on where your posting! I don't know about 3A's, I mean they do do an awful lot of good work translating files and it is a good source of information, but strangely enough the people who do most of the actual work tend not to be those who are taking the flights of fancy that annoy me so much. I also don't think Madeleine is alive - sadly I think whoever took her would have 'disposed' of her as the publicity grew - it's so sad!

Hmm.. Amaral - I don't know, to be honest, I can't figure him out, when you see him talk he looks like he genuinly believes what he says, but I have to say that as far as his investigation goes, I don't think it was thorough, particularly in the very early stages. As for the book, well I haven't read it and I don't hold any store by it, mainly because it's not official. I do trust the PJ files, but only to a certain extent, I think a lot of people forget that these files are the recording of the investigation and a lot of lines of investigation will turn out to be the wrong ones, thats the nature of detective work, you go down every available scenario until you find the right one. Thing is, the PJ have no evidence or leads, the Lecistershire Police have no evidence or leads and as far as I can tell the McCanns own investigation has turned up no evidence or leads either. So either all three are poor detectives or there isn't anything to go on at the moment. I suppose I'd have to wait to see if he's found guilty or not before I can really decide, I'd like to think he was an honest person and I do think that the McCanns certainly didn't do a lot to help build relations between themselves and the Portugese police, (I don't think they had much faith in the PJ right from the begining - which may have alienated them) but that still wouldn't excuse his behaviour for me if he is lying or trying to stitch them up. All I know is that someone is lying, or omitting to tell the complete truth, I'm just not sure who, yet.

Vee - I agree wholeheartedly, I've thought this before, I don't think that the McCanns behaviour prior to Madeleine's absence adds up to them having covered up an accident. I think it's more likely they are trying to perhaps lessen their own guilt about leaving her, maybe to protect their reputation.

Okay, I'm on holiday with my husaband and my children, we decide to leave them in the apartment each evening while we eat across the road, thinking in all innocence it will be okay - or perhaps not really taking the time to consider it properly at all. We discover one child is missing! What am I thinking, well first I'm shocked and scared, hoping and praying she's wandered off and someone will find her, after an hour or so I begin to panic. But I'm also thinking about the consequences, oh my god we weren't there, what will happen to our other children, will they be taken away from us, will people think we are unfit parents, how do we get her back?? I guess what I'm saying is that under these circumstances I would expect a parent to be guarded and suspicious, because they must know that the situation puts them under scruitiny and they know they were wrong in doing what they did, they wish they could change it, but it also makes them defensive. I become more and more convinced that it's this guilt that makes the McCanns seem so cold or act so strangely sometimes. Thing is, even though their behaviour is understandable under such circumstances, I feel it would have been better for them and for Madeleine if they had not given into the defensiveness, if they'd been frank and honest and not defensive I think there wouldn't have been as much suspicion and more work on the abduction theory.


But people go too far with the suspicion, I mean all the guff about Kate taking the kids to watch the lights switched on? What? Because Madeleine is missing the twins can't have a good time - EVER? :club: Another one that annoys me so much is the 'oh well if they cared about their children why did they put the twins back in the creche after Madeleine disapreared?' - well why not? Surely it's better for the twins to be away from all of that, if only for a few hours a day? Surely it's better for THEM that they are not surrounded by the media circus or to sit in on the police interviews? None of the staff were ever under suspicion as far as I'm aware.

No, no one knows if the poor kid is dead or alive, although death is a far better alternative to some of the suffering she could be enduring. However, I don't know whether or not she died in the apartment, I do know that the dogs findings indicate death in the apartment but that doesn't mean it was Madeleine. The dogs kind of mess everything up really, because there's no explanation for it. In certain spots of alert human DNA was found and it can neither confirm on deny that it was Madeleine's DNA, so basically that gets us no where. The clothes, Cuddle Cat, the Car, etc., none of it can be explained. I have to say if the McCanns are innocent then they are the unluckiest couple on the planet.

Hey Mod - you hit the nail on the head, you can't have a neutral conversation without watching every word, and I get really sick of anyone new or who's opinion is not 'they did it for sure' is labeled a troll or a member of Team McCann - it gets really silly sometimes. I'm a logical person, I need logical discussion, not wild fantasy or unfounded accusations.

Pedro - Of course you have a point, but there are other explanations, for instance the McCanns could have got someone else to dispose of the body - unlikely but possible, they weren't in the public eye 100% of the time, it's quite possible for them to get out for the day or to go out in the night. I'm not saying they did any of these things, but as with everything else about this case there is nothing to say either way that they did or didn't. I admit the hire car thing is unlikely, but again there are possible explanations, both for and against the McCanns, but it's not impossible that they hid her body and then moved it, unlikely, yes, impossible, no. The problem I have is that there's nothing concrete in any of it, and I think the McCanns themselves cloud the issue in being too proud to talk frankly about their own actions. I hope that the McCanns give a full, frank and detailed account of themselves at somepoint, for two reasons, firstly because I think it might help people understand them better and secondly because it would help my sanity! shootmyself

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Pedro Silva on Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:05 am

My friend, without causing any offense to you, first of all, we have no evidence of any harm, we have nothing to prove any supposed death, and Iīm going to explain why. Is it a properly detective work to make such blunders in an investigation and to be put in charge of an abduction investigation, a person who professional expertise are drug dealers, instead of persons with professional expertise in abductions, such like this one? Is it common behaviour that when a police force cannot find something to allow to solve a case, to refuse assistance of better police forces which are experts in abductions, which was offered to PJ, and PJ wrongly refuses it, and when accepted, it was only with the purpose of frame the couple? IS IT? Youīre saying that the couple didnīt do much to help PJ. I donīt agree with you. If a police wants to frame you at any cost, by something you didnīt do, will you help the police by giving them something that could frame you by something you didnīt do? If a police wants to frame you by any way, at any cost, you tell me, how can someone trust in a police (who commited such blunders who sadly jeopardize seriously this investigation) whom only concern is to frame the parents of a missing child (instead of finding her) and, in the end of the investigation, after being putted away (Mr. Alipio Ribeiro said at the time: "The police officers under his authority acted too hastily in making the couple McCann official suspects, and that there is no case for the couple to answer"), because of a silly and shameful investigation, writes a book and visits several countries with the only purpose of having a behaviour like a Hollywood celebrity? Please, what kind of police officer is this, that leaves clues behind to be investigated, and focus only in the wrong theorie of blaming the parents of the child (who are totally innocent) at all cost, and refused to talk with potential witnesses (and keep secret drawings of potential suspects inside a desk, instead of showing them to the parents and to their private investigators, which were only being seen when the files were made public, these files shows that the couple is totally innocent and proves that there is no evidence of any harm or death) that strongly believes in the abduction (key witnesses), but wants to talk with those who says about her being killed by her parents? Even worst, to present lies to the couple, with the purpose of see if any of them says something to compromise themselves, by forcing a confession (about something they never did) to make them guilty of something the couple never did? The answer is simple: this was made to hide the blunders of PJ (an ex-police officer, actually). He (the ex-police officer thought: "Hey, this is a very good opportunity for me to write a book, to retire myself, and to become a celebrity, by signing my signature in the books, and with the money I earn, I can spend the rest of my days to behave like a Hollywood celebrity, what more do I need?".

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:56 am

I'm in full agreement with you, there is nothing to prove that any harm has come to Madeleine at all, nothing. There is also nothing to prove there was an abduction either. The thing is, with Amaral and his investigation, they DID investigate the possibility of abduction it's all over the files, but it's not particularly exciting or controversial and therefore doesn't get much airtime.

Well, I have to defend Amaral and his team to a certain extent, it's easy to say with hindsight that they should have sealed off the apartment, but at the time the police assumed she had 'woke and wondered', statistically in a case such as this it's the most likely scenario - had she not been alone, then they would have reacted differently I am sure. I do think they should have done forensics sooner than they did though. The reason the McCanns were made arguido's was down to the dog and preliminary DNA results from those dogs alerts. Amaral didn't ask the British team to come in and do the search with the dogs or have any control over the DNA, but when the dogs alerted and the DNA seemed (at first) to indicate that it could have been from Madeleine then they really had no choice but to make them arguido's. In Portugal you cannot interview a person with regard to a crime they may have commited without this status as it gives the arguido the right to refuse to answer. In missing children cases the family are ALWAYS investigated, because the majority of cases have family involvement - not all though, but see Madeleine is the victim here and the investigation was to find out what happened to her, the police cannot ever automatically assume the parents are innocent, no one is presumed innocent in an investigation, in a court of law yes, in an investigation though everyone is a potential suspect otherwise you'd never find the culprit.

Perhaps they were to hasty to make them Arguido's, but even after Amaral was removed (not sacked by the way, he continued to work for the PJ for months afterwards) they weren't released from their Arguido status until many months after the new guy took over.

yes he wrote a book, but was that merely because he wanted to make money (money which he says he is donating a large proportion to charity), or did he do it because the McCanns had openly criticised him in the media? The PJ refused to allow him to make any statement in defense of himself, so when he was free from his obligations to the PJ he decided to set the record straight, perhaps? I don't honesty know what his motivation is for his book, but so far the McCanns have not sued, despite numerous threats to do so.

Within days of Madeleines disapearance, the extended family were openly criticising the Portugese Police, Kate has stated several times that she was frustrated that no one was searching at 4.30am on the 4th, after the police and public had spent the whole night searching and needed to get some rest so they could start again at first light. But she has also stated that she herself never did anything that could be described as physically searching for her? They also admit that right from the start they never had confidence in the Portugese Police, because they were a foreign police force, but they were in a foreign country, what did they expect? It seems to me that the McCanns had already decided that the police were incompetant before they'd even had chance to do anything for them, which seems a little unfair, and I think may have caused a communication breakdown. Also add to that the fact that the Leicestershire police worked closely with the PJ and they haven't found her either, neither have the numerous people the McCanns have paid to investigate? This says that there is not and never was enough information to find out what happened to Madeleine, rather than a case of PJ incompetance.

Yes, I suppose it was very hard on the McCanns to not have access to information regarding the ongoing investigation into their daughters disapearance, but when since did the police ever have an obligation to provide information into an ongoing investigation? Up untill they were made arguido's they were informed when it was relevant, afterwards there was no choice, they couldn't be informed.

I have never read anything official that states the McCanns are totally innocent, only that there was no proof of guilt. Which is different.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:32 am

Sillycat, I really enjoy reading your posts. Especially the ones that cover all angles. As I said elswhere, with not enough facts we have to weigh up which theory is more possible. There is no evidence of abduction but, to me, abduction is the most explainable as possible. If Madeleine died in 5A and was removed, even if I follow the most realistic chain of events, it would be extremely difficult to explain as possible. Too many risks that would expose what was going on either from slip ups or from someone spilling the beans. If someone else disposed of the body, it would have to be someone that could be trusted. The only people who could be trusted, I would think, are the friends that shared the holiday and they were under the same spotlight as everyone else.

Considering death ( i dont like talking about death but it must be considered), deliberate or accidental. Why cover it up at all? If it was covered up and then found too late to change minds we still have to wonder how the body could have been stored and then removed to wherever it is now. Whatever happened to Madeleine would have required planning, knowledge of the location and a group of people who would have already trusted each other. I dont believe the McCanns would have pre planned to murder Madeleine while on holiday because I just cant see them as that sort of people, I dont believe that if they accidently killed her they would have been able to plan her disappearence at such short notice and for it to have gone so smoothly and successfully. No, the abduction by more than One person, planned and well organised makes sense to me. I just hope and pray it was not Paedophiles or anything to do with exploitation but by someone who, although extremely selfish and inconsiderate are actually looking after Madeleine.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Hi Clairesy

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:08 am

clairesy wrote:The problem with 3a is quite simple...its still open!!

Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin Laffin



You had me rolling off my chair with that one flower

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Hi Sillycat

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:34 am

Many thanks for your prompt reply. How strange it is that people interprit things so differently. I find the restraint the McCanns show in public to be commendable...and I like to think this is exactly how I would behave in a similar situation. Several years ago my son was taken very ill and I was told he would not last another 24 hours. Outwardly I remained calm...but inwardly I went to pieces. I bottled up every terrified emotion I was feeling. Thank goodness my son survived...but it is a day in my life I will never forget, the utter terror I felt inside will remain with me always. So you see I can understand the calmness Kate shows to the world...but I can see beyond it.
My views on Amaral, I must admit are a lot different to yours. I find his book insulting to Madeleine and her memory. I found his approach to his work as a policeman to be a disgrace to the Portuguese people. He leaked to the press, he lied constantly and he spent more time filling his belly than actually working.
I agree there is no evidence that she was abducted...but then there is also no evidence that she was not. I think the first few hours after she went missing are the reason this case became stalemate. If the PJ had put into action a sealing off of the crime scene straight away..alerted and closed off ports, airports etc that night then we may have seen closure on this case a long time ago. Plus it may just have saved Madeleine's life.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Pedro Silva on Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:21 am

I agree totally with Mum21. That is why the couple is now doing what the PJ had the obligation and duty od done when it was needed. One more reason to the efforts of the couple, which are truly commendable, to be supported in full, even more that they fought also for the establishment of the Amber Alert System in Europe and worldwide, also fought for all missing children worldwide (and continue to do it also).

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Sillycat

Post by dianeh on Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:01 am

Nice to have you here. I think from reading you post that you are one of the rare breed of fence sitter, who is genuinely still waiting for more evidence. I on the other hand have looked at as much as I can and have reached the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted and that the pj failed to conduct a thorough investigation as well as waged a smear campaign against the McCanns which is why there are doubts about the McCanns by some people. I can understand your position and respect it. But let me say I will keep trying to convert you (nicely of course). Here is my first attempt, which answers many of the things which you raised in your excellent post below.

Here is a link to an interview with Brad Garret, a former FBI profiler who has done an outside review (he didnt have access to the files at the time) of the McCann case. He is an expert in this field, and has no axe to grind, and is not British so there is no inherent national loyalty coming into play. I cant cut and past it here, as it goes over a few pages, and also has a video with it. It is well worth watching.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4766445&page=1

I will be very interested to hear you views on this being that you are a fence sitter.

And welcome.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:25 pm

I really enjoy reading your posts too, Mod! You know, all the points you raised I have questioned myself, it does seem rather far fetched to assume that they killed her or found her dead and had the time and mental capacity to organise the cover up in such a small window of time. Thats the trouble for me, though, there's no knowing what happened from the information we have. What I'd truly love to know is how Kate and Gerry knew, without doubt that she'd been abducted. Most people say it was the shutters, but they weren't forced from the outside and the patio door was unlocked, why would an abductor, who had been watching them, enter or leave through the window when they must have know the Patio was unlocked? There's just too many questions for me to make a judgement about what happened and who is responsible. I have a lot of doubt, just recently though I've been reconsidering the 'woke and wondered' option, which sounds more plausable by the day.

I don't hate the McCanns, in fact I feel sorry for them, but I don't particularly like them as people - obviously though I don't know them personally and can only judge off their behaviour, but I think they've helped contribute towards the annymosity towards them by making bad decisions.

To me the fact that they went on holiday and put their children in the creche each morning and almost every afternoon and then left them alone at night, says something about their parenting. Now I'm sure they are good parents in many ways, and I'm sure they did'n't kill Madeleine or have been cruel to their children in any way, but I can't understand why someone would take their children on holiday only to spent very little time with them? But, as i said before it could be that I'm an overprotective mother, but I've spent the last four years being a full time mum and I still cherished the times we spent on holiday together as a chance to be a family - I wasn't looking for any 'me' time - or not more than a few hours at least. See, thats the thing, I know that my own values and principles about parenting are not compatable with the McCanns, and therefore I find it hard to understand the decisions they made.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mum21

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:48 pm

To be honest with you the lack of emotion is probably the thing i question least, it's the jogging, playing tennis, getting hair cuts, talking about an anniversary concert only a few weeks after she'd disapeared, releasing the details of her coloboma (sp?) when advised not to and the many varying descriptions and version of events that come from them that make me question them. I try to put it down to the guilty feelings they have for putting their children at risk that makes them seem suspicious, but I know people like the McCanns, people who have worked hard to get where they are and have to be proffessional, sometimes these people lose touch with their innermost feelings and become hardened to an extent. I can't believe that any mother (and I say mother because they bond between mother and child is much stronger in women than men, purely because it's the women who carry the baby for 9 months) could happily go out for a meal and enjoy it when they knew their children were alone. I'd be up and down every five minutes and wouldn't be able to relax wondering if they had awoke and needed me. I don't think thats unusual, I think most parents would feel the same. I have seen Kate looking very upset and she has cried and when I see her do that I have nothing but sympathy for her, I feel so sorry for her, but I can't help but feel that she is partially responsible, not just for her own pain but for that of Madeleine also. I think sometimes though Kate gets unfairly singled out for criticism because she's a mother and mothers are expected to care more for their children than fathers - which is wrong, Gerry is just as responsible, but people seem to expect fathers to be more practicle than emotive.

Well, I've never read the book, it's irrelivant really because whatever Amaral discovered in his investigation should be in the files anyway. Well, to be honest, we can't confirm that the leaks came directly from Amaral, there were a lot of people working on this case and any one of them could have been leaking stuff. I don't know either that I can say he lied? Unless of course I missed something, it's quite possible in the masses of true and untrue stuff thats been printed about the McCanns? More time filling his belly? hmm... I don't really know what makes you say that, but I assume it's the long lunches, but I just thought that was par for the course in Portugal, don't they have long siesta type dinner breaks as they do in spain?

I agree that the apartment should have been sealed off, but thats with hindsight, at the time I can only assume they thought she'd left the apartment under her own steam, and also by the time the police got there masses of people had trampled through the apartment which wouldn't have helped matters. I do think the PJ made mistakes of course they did, the investigation went on for over a year, and hundreds of people worked on it, so there are bound to be mistakes, no one is perfect afterall. The British police also make mistakes. It's not like they actually charged the McCanns, they were only suspects, it's just that the Portugese system worked differently than ours.

I think there are two things to consider, yes the PJ should have closed the boarders sooner, but again they seemed to be working from the 'woke and wondered' theory for the first 24 hours or so, they only reason this seemed more likely is because she was alone, had someone been with her, not only would they have raised the alarm sooner, and known (more or less) the exact time she was taken, but the police would have had no doubt as to what happened to her - thats if she was taken at all, because abductors tend to be cowards they don't want to get caught and would probably have moved on to the next vulnerable child.

The chance of child abduction in general terms is very low, but the chance increases the moment a child is alone - these 'predators' are opportunists.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Dianeh

Post by Guest on Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:58 pm

Hi Dianeh, I'd like to think I'm a fence sitter also, but on anti sites I get accused of being a pro and on most pro sites I get accused of being an anti! I can't seem to win, but I'm really glad I came here, because everyone has been so understand of my position. I don't mind if you try and convert me, it means I'm exposed to a whole new side of the story which is what interested me most about this site, if I'm honest, I need a new perspective on this. I'm not saying it will work, but it will certainly give me a more rounded picture.

I'm going to take a look at the link you provided and get back to you with my thoughts!

Edited to add, I read the link, it's interesting reading, I didn't know the police left? I thought they were out searching until 4.30am? I know the McCanns complained that no one seemed to be doing anything, but obvioiusly people were out searching, we can see from the video footage at the time the police working in and around the apartment and out searching with members of the public. It's not particularly detailed though what the guy is saying, he doesn't offer a verdict as to whether or not she could have woke and wandered? He doesn't say anything about her being alone at the time and he doesn't really have any information other than what had appeared in the press. In fact going on the basis that she was abducted I agree with him wholeheartedly, but it's still, after all this time, only speculation that she was abducted, the fact that she was alone means that no one can be 100% sure even now, so it's a little harsh, I feel, to expect the PJ to have instantly known that and acted upon it.

Even if Amber Alert had been operational in Portugal at the time, they still wouldn't have raised the alert. If the alert is raised often for cases of missing children that aren't really missing or in any danger the system becomes ineffective and so in order to stop this happening there is criteria to meet before they can raise the alert. These criteria include, knowing that the child has actually been abducted and at the begining they couldn't say for sure that she had been. It's a major issue, and to be honest if I'd been a policewoman at the scene I would have doubted the abduction theory simply because she'd been left alone. It's more than just a simple mistake on the parents part, the fact that she was alone not only placed her at risk of abduction in the first place but made tracing her and finding her abductor more difficult.

I think that the McCanns in their guilt at not being there have sought desperately to make up for that and in doing so have made wild attempts at getting as much done as possible, sometimes without due consideration for whats best in the long run. I can understand it, if my child had gone missing i'd want to do everything I could to find her, in fact I'm one of those people who would either sit in a corner and sob or try desperately to do anything I thought would help. So I get where they're coming from, but I'm not an expert in these matters and would have to defer to the advice of those who are and I don't think the McCanns did that, in their desperation I think they thought they knew best and in doing so they alientated the police right from the start. I don't blame them in a way but I don't think it helped find Madeleine and it certainly didn't help them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Pedro Silva on Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:51 pm

My friends, youīre going to forgive me for saying my opinion, and for being so direct, and for that I apologize: I think that the discuss about "The Problem With 3Aīs" has now become (apparentely) some kind of "fight" between comments and opinions, and that is not good, it doesnīt help at all. So, let stop all this "fight" and use our strengh in something positive.

Pedro Silva
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 5571
Location : Portugal
Registration date : 2008-10-20

Back to top Go down

Pedro

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:38 am

You don't have to appologise for being direct, it's your right. I don't see fighting, I see a free and frank exchange of idea's and opinions, everyone's entitled to them as long as they are respectful of each other, and I think we're doing that. There's absolutely no bad feeling on my part to anyone here and I hope thats the same for everyone else.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:53 am

Pedro, we aren't fighting. Please understand that.

It's good to be open with repect which is something we wont get on 3A's. You have made some valid points yourself Pedro and they are as important as everyone elses. We have all got used to, through experience, debates turning into fights and slanging matches. So much so those who can debate with respect have lost out. I have joined several boards looking for debate with people that have different opinions because I like to question myself constantly and being asked questions that I wouldn't even think of asking myself. It is very difficult to reach a situation without suspicion and gain respect on other boards. This I believe is the fault mainly off 3A's which is advertised as 'open' but is in fact Anti.

This site is supportive of the McCann family and makes no excuse for that. Nothing wrong with that at all as that is what it says on the tin. You know what is going to be inside and how it is going to taste. For me it is a Mothership for pro's. You can get away from the fighting and relax with like minded people. However, I think if people with opposing opinions come in knowing this is a support site and respect both ways can be guaranteed then they should be welcomed. Sillycat comes with a good CV for being welcome on here, lol.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by vee8 on Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:06 am

Hi sillycat, nice debate you have got started here! I'd like to go over a couple of your points here. Firstly, the window. The PJ and bennett have accused Kate of changing her story, from Madeleine being taken out of the window, to being taken out of the door, because the window was supposedly still closed after all. I have read the official police files, wherein the first GNR police on the scene confirmed that the window WAS open when they arrived. Now I don't know wether Madeleine was taken out of the door or the window, but if anyone changed their story it is the PJ, not Kate, and we will have to ask THEM why they changed it.
The creche thing. I know from experience with my own kids, right from the earliest years, when on holiday, if there is any form of 'Kids club' it is not a question of leaving them there, it ia a case of trying to stop them from going! If they had a choice of playing with other kids, or sticking with some old fuddies, they chose other kids every time. And besides, we do have eye witness accounts of them playing on the beach as a family, and don't forget the holiday snaps, the one with Madeleine dangling her feet in a pool, and the one where she has an impish grin holding all those tennis balls. I can't see that they were taken in a creche? The bottom line is, we wern't there, so we really don't know HOW much time they spent together, and it is unfair to make our judgement on speculation.
Also, the first time they discussed any anniversary was nearing the 100th day missing, and not just a few days later. The bond between a mother and child is strong, but the bond between a mother and an I.V.F baby is even stronger. That is why I for one cannot accept the possibility that Kate EVER harmed Madeleine, though I know you also think the same.
The wandered off idea? It is possible, of course, but not so likely as some think. I have studied closely a street map of the resort, and it is a long way to the beach along a fairly busy street, even at that time of night. Any which way Madeleine went, she would have been spotted by other tourists, at least one of which would have asked her where she was going alone at that time of night. Even if they were reluctant to get involved at the time, someone would have come forward later, to tell what they saw.
I still say this was a carefully planned abduction, possibly with the help of someone on the inside. Maybe a member of staff perhaps?
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Vee8

Post by Guest on Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:50 am

Hey there!

Well, I don't know who changed the story, or in fact whether anyone did, but I do know that the relatives of Kate and Gerry were telling the press that the shutter was 'jemmied' i.e. forced open from the outside, however on inspection there was no damage to the window or the shutter. It was only when it was apparent that the abductor had not entered through the window that we were told that the door was unlocked. It may be that they've had that information all along, but Kate and Gerry obviously told their family that the window had been forced, of course it could just be the McCanns unwillingness to admit they left the door open that caused it, but really they should have just been honest from the begining, because if they did omit that information to the police they hampered the investigation, and if they simply didn't want it made public they shot themselves in the foot, because it's another area of suspicion.

Just had a duh moment (not that rare as it happens!), of course it wasn't at the very begining they started talking about an aniversary concert, because I remember Clarence was working for them at the time and he didn't start working for them immediately they had another spokesperson at first. It did seem odd to me though them talking about anniversaries when they were obviously hoping to get her back much sooner, maybe though that's just Gerry's practicality, he's thinking ahead, although I don't really know how he could, being under so much stress, but perhaps thats his way of coping, keeping as busy as humanly possible? Again all it serves to do is raise more suspicion, people will read into these things.

Well, the kids club nanny's state that Madeleine was in the creche every morning from just after breakfast until dinner time (long siesta) then back again in the afternoon from about 2 - 5 everyday except for one afternoon. It seems alien to me to have your children in the kids club all the time at that age. The other members of the tapas group rarely put their children in the kids club in the afternoon. Then consider Gerry's pity for another couple at the tapas who had their children with them, Kates comments about how difficult it was to get the kids to the restaurant in the morning and to take them with them for dinner without a buggy. The various statements from family saying that Kate enlisted help whenever Gerry was out of town, seem to imply to me that they found the children very hard work. Children are always hard work, yet I've known other parents with more children cope alone. I know that my values are totally at odds with the McCanns, it makes it hard for me to understand them, I suppose, it makes me question their motivations.

Another duh moment - I just realised that your username is not just some random thing - and I LOVE the sound of a v8 engine! :club:

By the way, can anyone tell me, what in the world this is??

:Notdoc'swig:

I'm lovin it, whatever! I want one!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Guest on Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:10 am

Soon after Madeleine disappeared, Gerry phoned a member of his family and said the window was open and the shutters were jemmied and they think she was abducted. I reckon he was talking in a high state of anxiety and was trying to put together what happened as he spoke to the family member. Finding the shutters and window open and initially thinkng that they must have been jemmied to be opened from outside, not yet considering the abductor didn't enter that way possibly, would have been his brain trying to make sense of what happened. I believe also that the GNR who were first to arrive also made a statement that they found the window open.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by vee8 on Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:56 am

Hi sillycat, here's a possibility. Two abductors, which I have always believed more likely than one. One waits outside the window, while the other slips in the door. The one in the flat opens the window, quickly scoops Madeleine up, passes her out the open window, then leaves by the door again. This has the advantage of speed, in case she wakes up and starts protesting. If that happened, she would be at the rear of the building, and out of earshot of the family sitting not far away. The pair then split up, the one with Madeleine walks across the top of the road, just as jane Tanner sees him. The second man, the one who entered could have gone in any direction, even towards the resturant. In fact, if it was a member of staff, a reasonable possibility, no one would have even noticed him. The one with Madeleine then jumps into a waiting car, and she's across the border, or on a boat, before the PJ even think to tell anyone. If there had been a parking space closer to the appartment that night, Jane may never have even seen him at all. There IS a car park directly to the rear of the appartment, but who knows for sure which spaces were taken or not?

And you like the sound of a V8? A woman after my own heart! You need to check out the video link on my website, on the 'About me' page! Perhaps Mod can put it up on here somewhere, just for you!

And the fuzzy thing? That's nobrot/notdoc's wig!!
avatar
vee8
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3113
Location : suffolk
Registration date : 2008-06-24

http://www.madeleine-adestinybegun.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Sillycat

Post by dianeh on Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:09 am

About the kids club. My kids (3yo and 4yo) love anything that resembles a creche or a kids club. That is because they dont get to use them all the time (they are looked after full time by their Nana). And they dont want to leave and go home. I have no doubt that my kids would much rather be in a kids club with things to do every minute than hang around with old Mum and Dad while on holidays.

Another thing to remember, is that there were two yo twins. No one else in the group has three young children to look after. And so they probably didnt need the rest that Kate did. After all, it was a holiday and all of them are entitled to a holiday. And if the kids loved the kids club, and it gave Kate some time to herself (which she doenst get at home because it has been reported that she looked after the kids herself when she wasnt at work, and work is not a break, or time to herself). I think that unless you have children of that age, you forget just how tired you get. I know that I still get exhausted and I only have two little ones. I think, add 1 more to the youngest and hell, I would need to check into the mental asylum for a rest.

I dont find anything wrong or strange with what they did. Also, I used to work at an off shore island resort (Australia) and most of the families put their kids in the kids club for all the hours it was open (something like 3 hours morning and afternoon). And the kids loved it. Absolutely loved it. It is just one big long play fest, with little excursions and art and craft, games, singing dancing, etc etc. I never knew of any kids that didnt want to be in there. With their parents the kids went on boat rides etc, but if just staying at the resort, the kids were just plain bored. Sitting around the pool or at the beach gets a bit boring for kids after a while. So a mixture of family time and kids creche provides for the happiest of family holidays. And that is exactly what the McCanns and the rest of the group did.
avatar
dianeh
Grand Member
Grand Member

Number of posts : 3465
Age : 53
Location : Outback, Australia
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: The problem with 3A's

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum