CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 There is an awful lot of misinformation "out there" about this case. Recently I have read all sorts of stuff which purports to be to be true only to find other pieces which supposedly debunk it. I understand that people think that Richard Hall is a nutcase and cant be bothered to spend 4 hours watching his films. Fine. He isnt the only person asking questions. Having got fed up with articles saying they said this, no they didnt, they did this, no they didnt, I'd thought I'd cut to the chase and look at what the guy who led the investigation had to say. There is a 52 minute film on YouTube which is based on his book The Truth of the Lie. The so called "Keystone Cop" Insp Goncalo Amaral, goes through the case in his own words an explains why he came to his conclusion. I am sure those of you who are avidly pro McCann will pull holes in it, but it is interesting to get his viewpoint. As for your comments about having children Mr Fry, I am interested if it makes a difference to how people see the McCann case. Whether they are more likely to be anti McCann if they have children of their own. Not sure why you got so upset about that. I have heard people say they support Kate McCann and in the next breath call her a MILF. It would be interesting to know why people form their opinions, to me anyway. Do some feel she is telling the truth because they think she is "fit" ? If she was overweight, unattractive and out of work would she get the same amount of symapthy? I am not trying to be clever, but the McCanns clearly divide opinion and it would be interesting to know why. Who are the other people asking questions? Non mental people only pls. Goncalo Amaral is currently being sued for libel by the McCanns. I believe Pap is going to sue for libel Buctootim because he said he was a mentalist. There's a lot of it about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 I believe Pap is going to sue for libel Buctootim because he said he was a mentalist. Nah, it's not worth it. He walked away from millions, remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notnowcato Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Nah, it's not worth it. He walked away from millions, remember. I'd like to see a link to this before judging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Non mental people? What sort of comment is that? So everyone who has an issue with the McCann's version of event are more likely to be mental? Of course they have gone after Amaral. They have tried to silence anyone who implicates them. He managed to get his book published in the end through so they failed there. Watch his film and tell me what you think. Do you have children of your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 What is a lie? Kate's comment? Unless they got a good lookalike in the studio I dont think so. I dont think I am alone here in saying if my child went missing I'd be up all night looking for her. Anyway are you going to answer my question ? Do you have children of your own? The "Gerry laughing his head off" lie is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 What difference does having a child of your own make? Fred and Rose West were parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 What difference does having a child of your own make? Fred and Rose West were parents. Holding up two of Britain's most infamous child killers as representatives of parenthood. Dealing with the intellectual big guns here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Non mental people? What sort of comment is that? So everyone who has an issue with the McCann's version of event are more likely to be mental? Of course they have gone after Amaral. They have tried to silence anyone who implicates them. He managed to get his book published in the end through so they failed there. Watch his film and tell me what you think. Do you have children of your own? Of course. Suing for libel means covering up guilt. Thanks Mr "Some things don't add up" At least this proves Pap definitely is mental. He's "gone after" people saying that about him and no mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Holding up two of Britain's most infamous child killers as representatives of parenthood. Dealing with the intellectual big guns here. Still stalking Pap. Lucky you "arent really interested" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 The "Gerry laughing his head off" lie is a lie. You are right, he was just smiling. I am sure we can all raise a smile when we have lost a child eh CB? Do you have children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Of course. Suing for libel means covering up guilt. Thanks Mr "Some things don't add up" At least the proves Pap definitely is mental. No suing for libel means you are completely innocent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 You are right, he was just smiling. I am sure we can all raise a smile when we have lost a child eh CB? Do you have children? How long after the event? who was speaking to him? what did they say? Was it a wan /polite smile or laughing his head off? how long after an event are parents allowed to smile again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 What difference does having a child of your own make? Fred and Rose West were parents. I just wonder if it makes a difference to how people view the McCanns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 (edited) I just wonder if it makes a difference to how people view the McCanns. It may well do. I suspect some of their most vociferous critics are people who think "there but for the grace of God go I". There is also the psychological need to to feel that the world is 'fair' and so that if something bad happens to someone they must have caused it in some way. Im not absolving the McCanns of all 'blame', they exposed their children to a risk which I wouldn't have. That said it doesn't mean they are responsible for her abduction. Ther rest of the Tapas 7 and probably millions of parents have done the same as the McCanns. The McCanns are especially vilfied for being unlucky and not crying enough. Edited 21 October, 2014 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 You are right, he was just smiling. I am sure we can all raise a smile when we have lost a child eh CB? Do you have children? So your little rant about him laughing was a lie. Apology accepted. Do you see how all these things that "don't add up" for you - we can add your made up assessment of John Stalker opinion to the list - can crumble into dust very easily? Because it is all nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 How long after the event? who was speaking to him? what did they say? Was it a wan /polite smile or laughing his head off? how long after an event are parents allowed to smile again? Perhaps it was just wind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 So your little rant about him laughing was a lie. Apology accepted. Do you see how all these things that "don't add up" for you - we can add your made up assessment of John Stalker opinion to the list - can crumble into dust very easily? Because it is all nonsense. No apology given. You are a very strange individual. I remember you having a pop at me when my Mum passed away. Using it as a cheap shot I seem to remember, Do you have children of your own? Why not answer the question? Oh and go back and read what John Stalker said. He said very clearly that something was being hidden in his opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Of course. Suing for libel means covering up guilt. Thanks Mr "Some things don't add up" At least this proves Pap definitely is mental. He's "gone after" people saying that about him and no mistake. We've learned much on this thread. We know you can't stay on topic, that you'll abuse anyone that has a different view to you and that you say you'll stand by your opinions, but really don't. I think we're also getting a sense of the regulars now. You, buctootim, Verbal and aintforever. There on every single thread with a hint of conflict with an official narrative, trying to smear people and shout them down. Nice to see it's not just me noticing. Still stalking Pap. Lucky you "arent really interested" Replying to a forum post on a public forum is stalking now? Do you think at all, Tim? Not have an inkling of how self-defeating using that medium to make that comment might be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 (edited) McCanns 'are hiding a big secret', former police chief claims Last updated at 14:34 28 October 2007 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490254/McCanns-hiding-big-secret-police-chief-claims.html#ixzz3GnYdVoJ1 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook It would appear that John Stalker is also a Mr It doesnt add up too eh? Edited 21 October, 2014 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 How long after the event? who was speaking to him? what did they say? Was it a wan /polite smile or laughing his head off? how long after an event are parents allowed to smile again? The fim clip I saw was, I think, on her 4th birthday, so no long after she had gone. I am not sure if it is the same incident of him supposedly "laughing his head off" to be fair. If I had time I'd look into it further but frankly I really cant be bothered anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 No apology given. You are a very strange individual. I remember you having a pop at me when my Mum passed away. Using it as a cheap shot I seem to remember, Do you have children of your own? Why not answer the question? Oh and go back and read what John Stalker said. He said very clearly that something was being hidden in his opinion. He said very clearly he thought they were abducted. Hilarious you posted a link to it again. Again! We've all read it. He says he thinks they were abducted and anyway this is from years and years ago. Nothing in it supports your "It don't add up" ramblings. As we covered on this thread about two days ago. No wonder "nothing adds up" with that memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 We've learned much on this thread. We know you can't stay on topic, that you'll abuse anyone that has a different view to you and that you say you'll stand by your opinions, but really don't. I think we're also getting a sense of the regulars now. You, buctootim, Verbal and aintforever. There on every single thread with a hint of conflict with an official narrative, trying to smear people and shout them down. Nice to see it's not just me noticing. Replying to a forum post on a public forum is stalking now? Do you think at all, Tim? Not have an inkling of how self-defeating using that medium to make that comment might be? I'll stay on topic. The McCanns will never be found guilty of harming/hiding/covering up their own child. They won't. I don't care what four hours of Internet conspiro-bol locks from a fruitcake says. There's the topic. Do us a favour, get your little numbered self help book out. I love that. Your best weapon against howwible people who don't really like it when people spout lies about Lee Rigby, 7/7 or in this case. Cause you guys are the truth hunters aintcha? The heroes? The seeers? And we ruin your fun with, like, facts and stuff. Soz and that. Go on, get your numbered list out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 He said very clearly he thought they were abducted. Hilarious you posted a link to it again. Again! We've all read it. He says he thinks they were abducted and anyway this is from years and years ago. Nothing in it supports your "It don't add up" ramblings. As we covered on this thread about two days ago. No wonder "nothing adds up" with that memory. You didnt read the bit about them holding something back then? Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 He said very clearly he thought they were abducted. Hilarious you posted a link to it again. Again! We've all read it. He says he thinks they were abducted and anyway this is from years and years ago. Nothing in it supports your "It don't add up" ramblings. As we covered on this thread about two days ago. No wonder "nothing adds up" with that memory. Still not answered my question. Do you have children of your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Reports from the original investigating team, their hypotheses and their rationale. Interesting reading. Within this context, the undersigned was present during various "strange" behaviours by the couple, who gradually began to react in a very negative manner to the increased investigative activity carried out by this police force, especially during the use of the English sniffer dogs for detecting cadaver odour, when more evidence arose in the investigation for the hypothesis of the death of Madeleine McCann. Several times, the McCann couple said that the attention of the police should be maintained focussing on the abduction hypothesis, which, in the couple's opinion, was the only scenario that occurred and that the police should not forget to continue to investigate the suspect Robert Murat. The child’s parents immediately attributed the fact (disappearance) to the action of a third party, defending the ABDUCTION. While abduction being one of the possible scenarios, the family’s actions led into that direction, by publicising the fact in a manner that had never been seen before. In fact, on the very next day, English television stations ‘opened’ their newscasts, already advertising the child’s disappearance / abduction. The defence of this scenario was the ‘truth’ of the facts under investigation, for the media. Time went by and that scenario was not confirmed as its presuppositions were not ‘fulfilled’. No ransom was ever demanded in exchange for information or for the child itself. ... The last time that the child was seen outside of the group, by someone who can prove that moment, was at around 5.35 p.m., when the parents went to pick her up at the crèche, which may widen the time lapse between the disappearance and the alert, into four hours. In a state of alert and with waves of panic, she searched the entire apartment, not managing to find the girl, which led her to go, in an upset state, to the Tapas restaurant, saying that her daughter had been taken. Clear allusion to an abduction, justified by the fact that the window was open, they said. During this time, the twins were in the bedroom, alone and sleeping. Furthermore, they never woke up during this night, in spite of all the commotion. ... (Of a total of 10 vehicles the cadaver odour dog and the blood dog only signalled the vehicle hired by the McCann family on 27th May). The places and objects signaled by the blood dog were tested forensically by the reputed British Laboratory (FSS) whose final results are not yet available. However, there are indications that would show that these will be inconclusive, in other words they do not corroborate the dogs signalling without leaving any doubt. Based upon the action of the sniffer dog team which reveals the eventual existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the car used by the McCann family and with the aim of enabling Gerald and Kate to safeguard their position in the process they were constituted arguidos, in the face of the mere possibility of their involvement with the eventual cadaver. During the course off their interrogation as arguidos they denied any responsibility in the disappearance of their daughter. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 The former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police told the Sunday Express: “My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up. “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” Now in my world, what John Stalker seems to be saying is that something doesnt add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 The former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police told the Sunday Express: “My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up. “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” Now in my world, what John Stalker seems to be saying is that something doesnt add up. Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook "That they are embarrassed about". That indicates wife swapping or not calling your mother. He would choose different words for killing your daughter or lying to conceal her abduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 You didnt read the bit about them holding something back then? Ok. You didn't read the explanation on this very thread that says that this clearly refers to the fact they were all getting pis sed up with no adequate childcare. It was on this thread. In the last couple of days. Remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 When asked about whether they searched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 They had been doing everything they could to get Madeleine back......apart from help look for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 (edited) I dunno, not looking v.hard seems to make them prob innocent to me. When I am guilty of something, like my mum wonders where all the chocolate biscuits have gone, I always make a big show of looking. "Well blow me, ain't that strange," I say, rummaging through cupboards etc, "I'm sure there was big pack of chocolate digestives somewhere, I only saw them other day. What a mystery. Have you tried my brother's room?" Edit: The point being, if i was innocent of not-eating an entire pack of chocolate digestives in one sitting I would treat the subsequent man-hunt with polite disinterest, and just let her get on with it. Edited 21 October, 2014 by Bearsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Reports from the original investigating team, their hypotheses and their rationale. Interesting reading. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id315.html How did the initial investigation pan out then? Did it end with the McCanns being charged with killing their own child and hiding the body? Or being charged with some other concealment of what they did? Or did it end with them being charged with absolutely nothing at all? For the benefit of the topic, can you remind me? Because, and you know, I don't have any empathy or nothing so just disregard it if you like, but you'd kinda think Joao, Ricardo and Tavares would be the people most driven to land this conviction, wouldn't they? I mean, they're the initial investigating team. So you'd think they investigated, wouldn't you? You know, I lack empathy, but why do people on the internet retreading random statements completely out of context of the entire investigation (where the McCanns are no longer suspects) how does this move the investigation on? What have you seen with your expert eye here that Jaoa, Ricardo and Tavares have missed? PS - don't get SOG to read the statements for you. He still thinks John Stalker thinks they dun it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 (edited) Your Role in the Search In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child. http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/childismissing/ch1.html Edited 21 October, 2014 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 They had been doing everything they could to get Madeleine back......apart from help look for her. Any police force in the world would tell you that in this kind of situation the last people you want traipsing around doing fingertip searches is the parents. For lots of reasons that even me, and I, like, have no empathy whatsoever, can understand. Have a little think yourself why keeping the parents away from the actual physical search is a good idea, and then come back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Your Role in the Search In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child. http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/childismissing/ch1.html Yeah, yeah but didn't she look all shifty in that video and that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 How did the initial investigation pan out then? Did it end with the McCanns being charged with killing their own child and hiding the body? Or being charged with some other concealment of what they did? Or did it end with them being charged with absolutely nothing at all? For the benefit of the topic, can you remind me? Because, and you know, I don't have any empathy or nothing so just disregard it if you like, but you'd kinda think Joao, Ricardo and Tavares would be the people most driven to land this conviction, wouldn't they? I mean, they're the initial investigating team. So you'd think they investigated, wouldn't you? You know, I lack empathy, but why do people on the internet retreading random statements completely out of context of the entire investigation (where the McCanns are no longer suspects) how does this move the investigation on? What have you seen with your expert eye here that Jaoa, Ricardo and Tavares have missed? PS - don't get SOG to read the statements for you. He still thinks John Stalker thinks they dun it. Are you saying all three of those officers deliberately falsified evidence and statements to get a quicker clear-up? Of course, you're not, so I think we can safely stow that line of reasoning. Everybody knows that the McCanns never went to trial in Portugal; the final report for the investigation is here:- http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html Inconclusive. In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor. On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many "news" of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity. Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient. That's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Are you saying all three of those officers deliberately falsified evidence and statements to get a quicker clear-up? Of course, you're not, so I think we can safely stow that line of reasoning. Everybody knows that the McCanns never went to trial in Portugal; the final report for the investigation is here:- http://www.mccannfiles.com/id136.html Inconclusive. In conclusion, it results from everything that has been done, despite the efforts that were made and all investigation lines being explored, that it is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night, and about the present location of the missing minor. On the other hand, it should be referred that this investigation moved itself under conditions of exceptional media exposure, with the publication of many "news" of imprecise, inexact or even false contents, which did not help, in the least, the discovery of the truth and created, many times, a climate of unusual commotion and of lack of serenity. Therefore, as we do not envision, at the present moment, the execution of any other diligence within the process that might produce any useful result for the process, I submit it to your consideration, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient. That's the problem. Where on earth have I suggested those three statements are false? I am saying you are pulling them out completely out of context with the outcome of the investigation, as if those three statements have more worth than other inputs into the investigation which you probably find not "interesting reading" because it doesn't suit your angle. This is perpetuating the myths that the McCann websites feed on, slicing and dicing fragments of information to suggest the parents are guilty of something they are not even suspects for anymore. Fair play for reproducing the concluding statement. Its not a satisfactory end to any investigation but regurgitating bits of it to try and bring forth a guilty verdict through the will of a few people on the internet is just a waste of everyone's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 The former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police told the Sunday Express: “My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up. “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” Now in my world, what John Stalker seems to be saying is that something doesnt add up. So "some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about" is killing their own daughter! I sometimes wonder about some people on here. Have you managed to come up with one timeline of how they possibly carried it out yet? Just one theory of how, why and when they killed her and how they disposed of the body.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70qJA0c9hQU C B Fry, re the "lie" about Gerry McCann laughing his head off shortly after his daughter went missing. If you watch this interview this lady mentions seeing it on TV. She could be lying of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Any police force in the world would tell you that in this kind of situation the last people you want traipsing around doing fingertip searches is the parents. For lots of reasons that even me, and I, like, have no empathy whatsoever, can understand. Have a little think yourself why keeping the parents away from the actual physical search is a good idea, and then come back to me. You still havent answered my question. Do you have children of your own. If you found a child missing - apart from notifying the authorities dont you think the first thing you would do is look for them? Unless of course you know there is no point. Have a little think about that and come back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 You still havent answered my question. Do you have children of your own. If you found a child missing - apart from notifying the authorities dont you think the first thing you would do is look for them? Unless of course you know there is no point. Have a little think about that and come back to me. They did look for them according to that mccann files website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 So "some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about" is killing their own daughter! I sometimes wonder about some people on here. Have you managed to come up with one timeline of how they possibly carried it out yet? Just one theory of how, why and when they killed her and how they disposed of the body.... So you chose to ignore the quote "my gut instinct is that some big secret is being covered up." I have highlighted the important words. Watch the film by Goncalo Amaral. He is the guy who investigated the disappearence. He has 27 years police experience. You may well disagree with his conclusion but it is no less believable than a random person breaking into the apartment, taking the child and leaving without leaving any signs of a forced break in and abduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 They did look for them according to that mccann files website. Really, when did they say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 You still havent answered my question. Do you have children of your own. If you found a child missing - apart from notifying the authorities dont you think the first thing you would do is look for them? Unless of course you know there is no point. Have a little think about that and come back to me. So you haven't managed to come up with a single reason why the police would say that families of missing children are really not the best people to go out hunting for them? Thought not. Keep thinking sunshine. It might help you make things "add up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 (edited) Your Role in the Search In the initial stage of the search, devote your time to providing information to and answering questions from investigators. Once you discover that your child is missing, you will desperately want to help with the search. You may, in fact, wonder how you possibly can stand by and let others look for your child. But the reality is that in most instances, the best use of your energy is not on the physical search itself. Rather, you need to provide information to and answer questions from investigators and to be at home in the event your child calls. The checklist Gathering Evidence in the First 48 Hours identifies the most crucial pieces of background information and evidence that law enforcement will need in the search for your child. http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/childismissing/ch1.html So you walk into the apartment and discover your child is missing. Every parent has clearly read this directive and will do precisely this instead of go out and look for the child in case she has wandered off. I'll ask you the same question I asked Fry, Tim. Do you have children of your own? I will also ask how do you know they are missing unless you have checked the immediate area and checked with the neighbours (unless all of the people were in the Tapas bar of course!). But silly me, they should have been at home in case their child called. Maddy must have had a mobile phone with her. D'oh. Edited 21 October, 2014 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 So you haven't managed to come up with a single reason why the police would say that families of missing children are really not the best people to go out hunting for them? Thought not. Keep thinking sunshine. It might help you make things "add up". Sunshine, got an answer about your parental status yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 PS - don't get SOG to read the statements for you. He still thinks John Stalker thinks they dun it. Where did I say that. You wouldn't be lying would you CB? Heaven forbid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Sunshine, got an answer about your parental status yet? SOG - both CB Fry and Tim have confirmed they are parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Sunshine, got an answer about your parental status yet? Did you only start believing in conspiracy bulls hit after you had children? Were you normal before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 21 October, 2014 Share Posted 21 October, 2014 Ok, so why not stop with the infantile responses and answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now