sadoldgit

My apologies if I left anything out. I thought I had got it all. I had only seen a few quotes of this interview before so was interested to read the full piece and agree that Stalker was not attaching blame to the McCanns but what interested me was that he also clearly thinks that we havent been told the truth as yet. I was charged with an offence a few years ago and gave a number of statements. There was no deviation in my version of events. I answered all of the questions put to me because I was clear that I had nothing to hide. No no comments at all and I gave statements willingly. The person bringing the charges against me also gave a number of statements but in each case some details of their version of events changed significantly. The case was dropped on the morning before the trial because the person withdrew the allegations. Their barrister even stood up in court and berated the CPS (I wasn't working for them then) for even bringing the charges against me! My point is that if you stick to the truth you will not get tripped up and end up looking guilty even if you are not. I completely understand the points about not implicating themselves and remaining silent for good reason, but by refusing to answer questions and by changing their stories all they did was help to hamper the search for and investigation into the child's disappearance. I know that we are all different but if that was me (and I think many parents would act in the same way) I would have been out on the streets that night looking for her. I would have gladly taken a lie detector test. I would have gladly given up statements whenever requested and would have urged my friends to do likewise. I take the point about the Tapas 7 being worried about being seen as bad parents but we clearly know that anyway. The lady who lives about the McCanns apparently heard a child crying from their apartment for 75 minutes the night before and the claims that there were half hourly checks are probably bogus. We know at least that they were all very selfish people and only seemed concerned with having a good time themselves. What is more important, their reputations of the investigation in Maddy's disappearance? If I was the parent of a missing child I would be doing my utmost to ensure that anyway with information that would help the investigation co-operated fully. We can debate the effectiveness of sniffer dogs all day long. We can give up theories only why Maddy's blood samples were found in the boot of a car hired 25 days after she vanished. What continues to bother me is the way that some stories have changed or have been discredited - not least Kate's description of the bedroom as she found it that night and stories of how the shutters had been jemmied open when there no sign of them being interfered with. "They are extremely intelligent and articulate people." Why then do they have so much trouble getting the details of what they saw and did that night to tally?

Squeaky bum time or just a squeaky seat?

MCCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET' Sunday October 28 2007 By John Stalker I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months. One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group - the Tapas Nine - remained so silent? My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up. Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other. After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak. Their answer has always been no comment but there is surely some division between them. So what are they hiding? I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth. There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about. While they continue to refuse to talk it is unlikely that we will find out what it is for a very long time but one thing is certain - it will eventually come out. The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead. The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her. My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child. My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance. On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could. I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing. The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham. There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture. In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were. All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns' hire car and on her mother's clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator. If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, ther is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine's or the twins' DNA on to his clothing. I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old. All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister. Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned. But my gut instinct still forces me to wonder: What is the secret that the Tapas Nine are so carefully hiding? This is what Stalker had to say a few months after the incident. You dont have to be a genius to work out that he thinks that there is something not quite right here. He is being careful in what he says. For example, how many child abductors would walk into an apartment thinking that there would be children alone there. Unless they have intel that the parents were not home it just is very unlikely to happen. Although he is supportive of the McCanns at that point, this was way before the stories started coming out and showed cracks. I have been looking for something more recent from him but no joy so far.

I think, without doubt, you are the most objectional poster on here (and you have some competition). I pity you. You seem to get some sort of pleasure out of slagging people off on an internet forum. Clearly you have no life. Further to your question, they have been suspects and there is nothing stopping them becoming suspects again. The very fact that they left three young children in an apartment alone tells you something about what kind of people they are, but you seem to have no problem with that do you? Still, child abductors walk into unlocked houses and take children all the time don't they so of course the McCanns are blameless. Dribblers. How old are you?

Just feel so good for everyone at the club after the summer doldrums. Happy days!

Unlike you not to know what to say Alps!

Erm, they were suspects and the guy who ran the investigation wrote a book on the subject. Seriously, fu ck off yourself.

So no meltdown then?

I agree that statements will often contain some inconsistencies. In this case there appear to be many. Kate's description of the bedroom when she returned for for one. The statements always seem to change in response to the police findings which seems odd. From what she says initially it would appear that the bedroom had been tampered with. As has been mention, the Payne evidence doesn't come across as the least bit convincing. They did have a car didn't they? The dogs found cadaver scent in the boot of it. There are issues about the timelines of the events of the day. I work for the CPS. We prepare cases for court. In general even if things are not 100% spot on, you get a general picture of what probably occurred in a crime. There are a number of things here that do not add up, both from the statements given by the McCanns and other members of the Tapas 7. The original investigator clearly thought there was time enough to dispose of the body (if that is what happened). He stands by his original position. Apart from CB Fry who obviously knows everything, there is plenty in the case that does not add up and throwing a "conspiracy theory" tag at it doesn't help. The well respected John Stalker has said that he believes that the McCanns havent told the whole truth and doesnt seem impressed about the Tapas 7. None of us were there. None of us know what happened (apart from CB Fry clearly . Maybe they are completely innocent. It is a shame they have refused a lie detector test but that is their right. All I know is that there is a lot that doesnt add up and, to me, the McCanns have never seemed credible. If my child went missing I would have been pounding the streets all night. They stayed in. Gerry is quite chilling when he talks about there being no proof against them because there is no body. He also has a habit of walking out of interviews when he doesnt like the questions. All too often parents of missing/murdered children appear on our TV screens. The McCanns have never appeared as broken as the others. Perhaps they are just good at hiding their feelings? Who knows. We can argue the toss about sniffer dogs etc. What is clear though is that there is no evidence of an abduction and the McCanns original statement about the window has been discredited.

You may well not be ignorant, but you infect this place like internet Ebola and clearly do not have a shred of empathy in your body. I should also add that Richard Hall isnt the only one who has pointed out the inconsistencies in the McCanns (and others) statements. One detractor includes one of our most respected policemen. But hey, they didnt do it because CB Fry says they didnt. So it is all settled then.

One dog found blood. One dog found the scent of a body. The fours hours of film were not just about the reactions of the sniffer dogs although when you add everything up it creates a bigger picture. The reactions of the dogs are interesting but what is more important is the difference in the statements made by the McCanns and others. Although of course if you are CB Fry that isn't important. What is important is making childish comments. We are not policemen. The person who led the investigation in Portugal was professional, just as the Met police are. By all means have a pop at me, but are you saying the guy doesn't know his job?

Why do you have to be so patronising?

Grow up

So are you saying that the disappearance of a 3 year old girls doesn't matter? This is not about a conspiracy theory. It is about trying to find out what happened to a little girl.

You have completely missed my point. If you haven't watched the films then how can you know that what is in them is tenuous? There is no magic in police work. They take statements. They look at the available evidence. If things don't match then they have some more work to do. Things do not match in this case. There is no conspiracy theory. Just things that do not add up. Many of those things are the evidence given by the McCanns and some of the Tapas 7. One of the most respected policemen in this country has serious doubts about the evidence in this case so have a go at me all you like and continue to wallow in your ignorance.

Mr Fry, do you honestly believe that the McCann's would welcomed the Met if the Met said that they were treating them as prime suspects? What we have now is more of the same as before. Tenuous links from a trial that went cold years ago but perpetuating the abductor theory that seems to have no basis in fact.

Conversely I could argue that they may think if they stop now people will think a) they no longer care or b) they are guilty. We all have our own thoughts on the subject but personally I would be very surprised if they gave up doing what they have been doing so far. It is what they know, it is what they do. It doesn't make them any more or any less guilty. It is what they do. It doesn't change what the sniffer dogs found. It doesn't change the discrepancies in their statements. It doesn't change the fact that their is no evidence of an abduction It doesn't change anything.

Why they allowed him to sing at the Olympics is beyond me. John Lydon would have been a better shout (literally).

Good article in The Guardian today about KP. Props go to Graham Norton who suggested that KP wasn't suited to team games and perhaps ought to take up golf!

One way or another they are responsible for her "disappearance", harsh as it sounds. If they had stayed home or arranged childcare then we would have this thread.

He probably didn't do himself any favours by letting the keeper score at Stoke and playing silly b*ggers against Arsenal. We had one Bruce Grobelaar, don't need another.

Not at all. They have to keep going. If they back off now it would look worse for them. They know they are ok as long as the body is not discovered. If they did it that is. But with no proof of an abduction where does that leave the enquiry? Yep, right back with them.

And wore pink socks with tan shoes. D'oh.

I wonder if they would have spent this money if the couple had been a couple of chavs from a working class background?

Agreed, excellent post. We really ought to have local candidates who do live locally. You cant move around here for parish councillors who are all over local issues so I am sure there are people who would stand who know the local area well but are also politically savvy.