- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
There is no evidence either way. That is why it still hasn’t been solved. Everything is just speculation.All these people saying they think that the McCann’s didn’t do it/weren’t involved but not backing it up with evidence like the people who think the McCanns were involved do
‘Evidence’ in the sense of backing up why you think that with things that the public know, not just saying I don’t think the McCanns did it and leaving it at that. Those people have made this thread bare jarring
People saying they don’t think the parents did anything on a thread about a New suspect in Germany is jarring? What does that even mean?
I think people determined to paint the parents as murders with no evidence are sinister. But that’s not really what it’s about.
you don’t get evidence to prove a negative. Think about it.
How can you say there’s no evidence for the parents though, when there ain’t much evidence that this German abducted her, either?
I've seen barely any comments of people actually saying the parents didn't do it and leaving it at that.
Pretty much everyone has said I think they did it because... and then given their reasons, or I think they didn't because...
You're acting like this is a whole thread of one liners when actually most of the posts on both sides are detailed comments explaining their reasoning and how they interpret the info we have. Seems like you're clutching at straws here just because you don't like the theory that they didn't do it.
How do you know? The Germans haven’t released any of their evidence
Cba, very rarely seen any detailed comments about why the McCanns weren’t involved that includes evidence to support why they think that. It just makes an interesting discussion if people actually gave their reasoning backed up with evidence as to why they think the McCanns didn’t do, rather than disregarding, shuttling down, and labelling anyone as ‘sinister’ who has given their opinion (with evidence that makes them think this) on why the McCanns did it. It’s not to be sinister it’s to do the actual point of discussion, the whole point of the thread is to discuss what people think happened to her. People saying the McCanns were involved actually do this, have barely been given any genuine insight into why the McCanns didn’t do it because people bluntly write ‘I think they didn’t do it and if you did that makes you sinister’ which just drags the discussion down, like how am I meant to see the opposing POV when people don’t even give it
Paigelemonade I think you need to reread the thread. There is plenty of reasoning from posters as to why they don’t think the McCanns are involved. They’re not reposting it with every post they make, but I’m sure you wouldn’t expect them to.
And there is also a previous thread
And there is also a previous thread
I've posted this before but, I just want to point out again, for me, it isnt a case of "oh I hate the mccanns, they did it!" My opinions are based on the following.
The only evidence of an abduction, is missing Madeline. That's it.
The circumstantial evidence against the parents having some involvement, far outweighs abduction theory.
Missing Madeline.
No evidence of a break in.
No unidentified fingerprints.
Cadaver dog.
Blood dog alerting in same spots.
Changing statements.
Conflicting Tapas statements.
Statement analysis.
Lack of DNA, including Madelines.
Child neglect.
Edited/ deleted phone logs.
Gerry and Murats oddly in sync phones.
Brian Kennedy's dinner with Murat.
Refusal to take part in reconstruction.
Government protection within 24 hours.
Gaspar statement.
Those are facts, either straight from themselves, in the PJ files or conclusions from experts in their field.
I could also mention kate not answering the questions but, as this was probably legal advice, we'll have to leave that one. That being said, if my child was missing, nothing would keep me quiet. Nothing!! I'd be screaming from the rooftops, begging people to listen to me.
Then throw in their, questionable behaviour. The tennis, the running, the dinner with Freud, washing cuddle cat, the car boot left open morning, noon and night, snarky, defensive attitudes, monetizing the disappearence by setting up a private limited company "Madelines fund", selling a book in which you describe her "perfect genitals...", having the nanny from the creche visit them in England, the priest saying he had been "deceived" by them, Jane Tanners hugely changing account of the suspect she as adamant was Murat (and proved not to be), choosing a picture at least a year old, as the one to release in those early days, only having 5 photos of her after supposedly a weeks holiday, going against police advice regarding the release of information about her distinctive eye (it was recommended not to point this out to the potential abductor), Gerrys refusal to answer if he knew Murat and, the one I'll never understand,never physically searching for her themselves.
Like I said, circumstantial, none of this is the "smoking gun" but, put all the little pieces together and it paints a picture and its certainly enough to justifiably question the parents.
The only evidence of an abduction, is missing Madeline. That's it.
The circumstantial evidence against the parents having some involvement, far outweighs abduction theory.
Missing Madeline.
No evidence of a break in.
No unidentified fingerprints.
Cadaver dog.
Blood dog alerting in same spots.
Changing statements.
Conflicting Tapas statements.
Statement analysis.
Lack of DNA, including Madelines.
Child neglect.
Edited/ deleted phone logs.
Gerry and Murats oddly in sync phones.
Brian Kennedy's dinner with Murat.
Refusal to take part in reconstruction.
Government protection within 24 hours.
Gaspar statement.
Those are facts, either straight from themselves, in the PJ files or conclusions from experts in their field.
I could also mention kate not answering the questions but, as this was probably legal advice, we'll have to leave that one. That being said, if my child was missing, nothing would keep me quiet. Nothing!! I'd be screaming from the rooftops, begging people to listen to me.
Then throw in their, questionable behaviour. The tennis, the running, the dinner with Freud, washing cuddle cat, the car boot left open morning, noon and night, snarky, defensive attitudes, monetizing the disappearence by setting up a private limited company "Madelines fund", selling a book in which you describe her "perfect genitals...", having the nanny from the creche visit them in England, the priest saying he had been "deceived" by them, Jane Tanners hugely changing account of the suspect she as adamant was Murat (and proved not to be), choosing a picture at least a year old, as the one to release in those early days, only having 5 photos of her after supposedly a weeks holiday, going against police advice regarding the release of information about her distinctive eye (it was recommended not to point this out to the potential abductor), Gerrys refusal to answer if he knew Murat and, the one I'll never understand,never physically searching for her themselves.
Like I said, circumstantial, none of this is the "smoking gun" but, put all the little pieces together and it paints a picture and its certainly enough to justifiably question the parents.
But then when issues are raised that make it problematic for the parents to murder her (they had no time, no transport, how did they hide a body in a place they had never been to before so well it’s never been discovered) we get these outlandish conspiracies suggested- they are Freemasons, they killed her a week before, all 7 were involved in the cover up, the nanny was involved, the kids club lied about seeing her etc etc etc which is were the circumstantial evidence starts to get loony, and it becomes hard to take it seriously
Certainly, you have to filter out the bull.
Some of those theories might be ridiculous but some, are actually possible. Its unfair to not consider any of them based on the less likely, or frankly bonkers, scenarios.
Edited to add, there are some people out there who think Madeline never existed. Now, that's bonkers
It’s the context though isn’t it? The constant talk about the dogs. What does that show? Nothing. Even if you take them at face value, as 100% accurate, they show a dead body was in the apartment. How does that point towards the McCanns killing her? Anyone could’ve killed her in the apartment
Assuming the parents had absolutely nothing to do with MM’s disappearance, I wonder if they now look back at the things they did eg not answering so many questions the police asked and regret it or if they still believe that was the right thing to do.
its An interesting point.Thing is though, if they don’t know anything what more could they add?
Assuming the police didn’t ask any questions that were irrelevant because they didn’t want to waste time, even if they were only asked to rule them out so if Kate had answered the questions asked of her, even if they told the police nothing helpful, it would’ve ruled the parents out and the police would’ve moved on and not wasted hours with her and years thinking they were suspects.
Again, people have already discredited to this in their reasoning of their opposing opinion that the McCanns were involved. The whole apartment was deep cleaned, with police saying it was like Madeleine had hardly been there. Not to mention the curtains having being washed like other people have mentioned, and the fact that no conclusive DNA of Maddie was found, along with the fact that she had been sharing clothes and even a toothbrush with Amelie so they didn’t even have any DNA off of that. Some randomer killed Madeleine and then took the time to deep clean the entire apartment so not a single conclusive piece of her DNA was found? I don’t get it
It was only when they were made official suspects they refused to answer questions. They made complete statements before that. They’d already told them they were at dinner and had witnesses to that- what else could they have said to rule them out?
I can really sympathise with the way they behaved. I think I would’ve been similar, but more aggressive and telling them how useless they were. They would’ve been after me for sure
I can really sympathise with the way they behaved. I think I would’ve been similar, but more aggressive and telling them how useless they were. They would’ve been after me for sure
It’s not discredited. As a previous poster said none of this is evidence
Where are you getting that they washed the curtains? Considering several trace spots of blood were found on the curtains it is unlikely that they would have been washed, never mind by the McCanns in such a short amount of time. They found DNA from at least 2 individuals on the curtains, but none conclusively could be said to be maddie's.
I haven’t even seen anything to say the police couldn’t get DNA samples from the apartment either. Google doesn’t back it up. There does seem to be a massive amount of confusion from the Portuguese police re how to read a DNA analysis report though
- Status