Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

No

[Broomies Mate]

I personally felt the majority of the programme (and reconstruction) was to say "Hey, leaving the kids alone was not a bad thing...... look, these other couples did the same".

What I found ambiguous was the 'checking' on the McCanns children by their friend.  For those who didn't see the programme, a friend of the McCanns checked on the children 30 minutes prior to Kate.  It was not shown or reported whether or not that woman opened the bedroom door and looked at the children or whether she just listened out for noise (crying etc).

The 'Timeline' is much wider than the Police let us believe if you ask me......... unless they do have more knowledge than they are letting on?

[hotel21]

I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. 

My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind......

I'm especially surprised at you tbh.

EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.

At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" 

Everything previous to be ignored, is it?  Re-assess based on a televised reconstruction with the family and broadcasters full cooperation?

By no means wanting to appear controvertial - though undoubtedly I will in some eyes - I find that concept to be quite nieve.

All the original, live, as it happens, media grabbing TV with all the statements and body language etc from the family to be instantly deleted from the memory of everyone, just as per the flashy gizmo from men in black, and thereafter reapply 'logic' based on a telly programme?

No thank you....

Yes, I feel and fear for the health of the wee lassie.

I'm not an expert but I have learned a little smattering of body language and word use from 'witnesses' over the years and....

as said in my original statement,

My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind......

And, as another phrase goes, opinions are like arseholes.  Everyone has one.

In the context of the programme. And in the context of this thread, as the questions in post 1...

Yes! Absolutely it is. Yes. Yes and thrice yes. Precisely because everyone had an opinion, is exactly why we where asked to start again. Which is exactly what the NEW investigation has had to do.

Hence, based on the contents of that programme, and that alone, I am asking you to concider post no.1 of this thread. Please.

And I have absolutely no doubt that any beak worth their position will verbally expulge any televisualised thoughts from a jurys mind in the opening remarks for the trial which will hopefully take place.

And, in the words of the dragons, I'm now out.   

[chrisgixer]

I agree with you mr LD. Not the knowing the area thing but the rest of the above. 

My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind......

I'm especially surprised at you tbh.

EVERYTHING that's gone before is to be ignored. Put yourselves in the position of a jury. Your eventually going to pass sentence on the Evidence presented in the programme, if the case develops.

At this rate we'll be sending the parents down because they where... "NOT PRESENT" 

Everything previous to be ignored, is it?  Re-assess based on a televised reconstruction with the family and broadcasters full cooperation?

By no means wanting to appear controvertial - though undoubtedly I will in some eyes - I find that concept to be quite nieve.

All the original, live, as it happens, media grabbing TV with all the statements and body language etc from the family to be instantly deleted from the memory of everyone, just as per the flashy gizmo from men in black, and thereafter reapply 'logic' based on a telly programme?

No thank you....

Yes, I feel and fear for the health of the wee lassie.

I'm not an expert but I have learned a little smattering of body language and word use from 'witnesses' over the years and....

as said in my original statement,

My personal jury is still very much out on the truth of the matter. The phrase 'methinks they protesteth too much' or similar comes to mind......

And, as another phrase goes, opinions are like arseholes.  Everyone has one.

In the context of the programme. And in the context of this thread, as the questions in post 1...

Yes! Absolutely it is. Yes. Yes and thrice yes. Precisely because everyone had an opinion, is exactly why we where asked to start again. Which is exactly what the NEW investigation has had to do.

Hence, based on the contents of that programme, and that alone, I am asking you to concider post no.1 of this thread. Please.

No.

I would much rather wade through a typewritten transcript of an extended trial than have my opinion influenced by a television company and parents who have had their views on facts deviated by time, circumstance, and a learning curve steered by a background media entourage looking after family interests based and on later interpretation and conjecture.

Yes, new evidence to light and all that but I would much rather read and understand same through as honest and third party a perspective as possible.  And that excludes a telly programme, sadly.

In that case, I don't understand. Why post at all? I know its Gen Dis and all that, so fair do's but the title is clear, the questions seem specific to the programme, yet we're all babbling on about the guilt, or otherwise, of the patents? Without the slightest concern, it seems, for the child.

Maybe we think the detectives naive? These are The a Mets. elite detectives, the yards finest. We're told.

Personally I don't give a rats rear end who did it. Just get that poor child back. No?

[Andy B]

....

And I have absolutely no doubt that any beak worth their position will verbally expulge any televisualised thoughts from a jurys mind in  .....

I assume that's a bit like expunge 

[05omegav6]

On the satellite image north is up. The waste ground you mention, or at least getting to it from the front of the apartment building would involve passing several openings from the pool area, with a good chance of being seen, similarly the road to the east is as exposed. If some one wanted to get from the first sighting to the second without being spotted from the pool area (perceived risk) they would head north east for a block or two, the turn south, down the side of the creche, turning right onto the road that leads south west from the creche to the town and the second sighting...

All that said, wtf would anyone walk? Out of the apartment, straight into a car and gone. By the time the alarm was raised, could be nearly at the Spanish border

Perhaps the McCanns guilt stems simply from knowing that they could have done things differently, but they did seem quite relieved at the 'new' evidence, him especially

[chrisgixer]

Also, re explurging (sorry ) from the judge. That's precisely what the detectives are asking re previous bs, or otherwise, from prior to the new investigation.

A clean slate. Seems reasonable from their point of view.

[chrisgixer]

The Macanns guilt stems from leaving the children in the first place, it seems to me.

But I've deliberately paid little attention to the Portuguese investigation tbh. I have no idea why they where considered suspects, in the full sense of the word.

My attention and questions stem purely from the programme yesterday.

[05omegav6]

Just get that poor child back. No?

A noble sentiment shared by everyone, I'm sure, but sadly I fear the most likely conclusion is that the police establish what happened to her and hopefully bring the guilty party/parties to book

The only problem with the clean slate approach is that they are forced to base their investigation on the original evidence

On the plus side, they obviously found enough potential within that evidence to reopen the investigation, and they're obviously looking for something to warrant the broadcast. The gaping holes in the reconstruction are as likely to be deliberate as they might be sloppy directing

You only get shown that which the person showing wants you to see...

[chrisgixer]

The sentiment I'm seeing in response to my questions about the programme from others though, is, the Mcanns where negligent. So why bother? Yes I know there's little anyone  can do, but that doesn't mean nobody should try.

Prior to the uk investigation, the Portuguese investigation has been rather rediculous  it seems to me. And I see in the news tonight the Portuguese are still claiming a fair job.

[05omegav6]

The Macanns guilt stems from leaving the children in the first place, it seems to me.

Quite possibly

I have no idea why they where considered suspects, in the full sense of the word.

Pretty standard practice, especially given the lack of immediate evidence and their (the McCanns) protestations. They are/were as likely to have been involved as any other potential suspect, including everyone else at their dinner table...

My attention and questions stem purely from the programme yesterday.

Perfectly reasonable, but note the last sentence of my previous post

[chrisgixer]

The Macanns guilt stems from leaving the children in the first place, it seems to me.

Quite possibly

I have no idea why they where considered suspects, in the full sense of the word.

Pretty standard practice, especially given the lack of immediate evidence and their (the McCanns) protestations. They are/were as likely to have been involved as any other potential suspect, including everyone else at their dinner table...

My attention and questions stem purely from the programme yesterday.

Perfectly reasonable, but note the last sentence of my previous post

Noted, indeed. I'm not "taken in" by it either, as suggested earlier elsewhere. I am questioning it, so quite the opposite.

[05omegav6]

I vaguely recall at the time, reports of paedophile rings operating throught Portugal and beyond. Perhaps, to the local Police, it was an all to common occurrence, and they treated it like they would any other missing child case

Lets say you're a local Police Chief, and every Friday a local person is murdered with no motive and no evidence. Then one Friday, a tourist rather than a local is shot, no obvious motive, or evidence.

Because it's a Friday, you treat it as a normal routine Friday murder, no leads, no suspicion, but suddenly the relatives of the tourist insist that not enough is being done to catch the murderer, politics get involved, and of course the media...

You have to do something, so you wind up going through the motions for a quiet life, and a year later, you're no nearer a result so you close the case, and deep down you suspect that it was simply another regular Friday murder.

I suspect that is where the Portuguese Police got to...

[Marks DTM Calib]

Here is my opinion.

Mrs M has always appeared 'lacking in confidence' and 'acting as if something to hide', on crimewatch this was coming over in spades.

Mr M I dont trust, he has an air of 'snideness' about him which again was very very evident on the program.

There is much more to this than meets the eye.

[chrisgixer]

Here is my opinion.

Mrs M has always appeared 'lacking in confidence' and 'acting as if something to hide', on crimewatch this was coming over in spades.

Mr M I dont trust, he has an air of 'snideness' about him which again was very very evident on the program.

There is much more to this than meets the eye.

Maybe so. But any thoughts on post no. 1?

[Marks DTM Calib]

A lot of assumptions.....one being that the person who came forward is indeed that person and not somebody who thinks he was that person....