Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[IamFreeCanIGo]

The terminology used does not change the way crimes with no obvious lines of enquiry are investigated. That phrase is not used in the UK, but in an enquiry with no leads relatives will be interviewed at some point and to do so properly they are dealt with and are given the same rights as an actual suspect.

Why do you think the PJ only made them arguidos because they had no other leads and that its normal. I mean what evidence do you have that the police did not actually suspect them but only made them suspects because they had no other lines of enquiry.

 

[lionking]

I havent seen anyone in the last few pages claim that at all. If you are including me in that list can you please link to my post that gave you that opinion.

So what is your claim, apart from your belief the McCanns looked suspicious?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

The terminology used does not change the way crimes with no obvious lines of enquiry are investigated. That phrase is not used in the UK, but in an enquiry with no leads relatives will be interviewed at some point and to do so properly they are dealt with and are given the same rights as an actual suspect.

Also the mccanns were interviewd twice without being made offical suspects. Why would they make them arguidos before the 3rd interview, how would this ensure they are properly dealt with if they werent suspected of commiting an offense. Your theory makes no sense.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

So what is your claim, apart from your belief the McCanns looked suspicious?

The only things i claim are.

1) they were negligent.
2) There is some suspicious elements to the case
3) The police did think they were responsible for her disappearence at one point.
4) Its possible and not beyone logic they could have sedated her

 

[lionking]

The only things i claim are.

1) they were negligent.
2) There is some suspicious elements to the case
3) The police did think they were responsible for her disappearence at one point.
4) Its possible and not beyone logic they could have sedated her

4 is an unsupported and in my opinion illogical speculation. Abduction by a UFO is possible.

 

[Nessie]

Why do you think the PJ only made them arguidos because they had no other leads and that its normal. I mean what evidence do you have that the police did not actually suspect them but only made them suspects because they had no other lines of enquiry.

I think such because that is how the police go about their enquiries. They had lots of leads but no definite line of enquiry and so they go back to basics. For example in a missing person enquiry the first job is to search the place they went missing from. That is because statistically missing young children are usually found very close by. Then the search broadens.

Then this was not a straight forward missing person enquiry. It is one where there is reason to believe a crime has been committed and/or the person missing is in a high risk category.

So unless the police there have a completely different way of conducting a high risk missing person enquiry from the UK, which from what I have seen is not the case, I believe the McCann's were never serious suspects.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

I think such because that is how the police go about their enquiries. They had lots of leads but no definite line of enquiry and so they go back to basics. For example in a missing person enquiry the first job is to search the place they went missing from. That is because statistically missing young children are usually found very close by. Then the search broadens.

Then this was not a straight forward missing person enquiry. It is one where there is reason to believe a crime has been committed and/or the person missing is in a high risk category.

So unless the police there have a completely different way of conducting a high risk missing person enquiry from the UK, which from what I have seen is not the case, I believe the McCann's were never serious suspects.

As i explained in my other post they had interviewed the mccanns twice, what did they gain by making them aguidos. Your theory is based on what you think, goes against logic and has no evidence to support it.

 

[Information Analyst]

Yea, I guess it does make more sense that two hard working and well regarded salt of the earths would suddenly kill their little daughter for no reason, manage to dispose of her body without a trace, and then spend the rest of their lives doing all they can to have the entire world remembering and looking for her rather than, having gotten away with it, simply letting the story fade away.

No leaps in logic there.

Except that that's not the only other option, if abduction by a third party or parties is ruled out. At the time of the disappearance, working in the NHS administration, the subject came up, and one of my colleagues - a trained nurse - casually suggested that the parents, being doctors, might have sedated her, and something went wrong, i.e. an overdose, or she woke up groggy, and had an accident. I was surprised at this, but she assured me that while not common, it was not unknown amongst medical professionals, who obviously have both the means and the knowledge. I can't be sure, but I think it must have been before (it seems in retrospect) the tabloid press started running with that angle.

It seems that the pro-McCann camp dispute this theory only on the grounds that the putative agent used mention in some tabloid press articles was Calpol Night, which wasn't available until after the event, and that the McCanns have denied in interviews that they sedated their children.

 

[gtm]

I havent seen anyone in the last few pages claim that at all. If you are including me in that list can you please link to my post that gave you that opinion.

I was referring to the anti Mccannites across the net.

 

[lionking]

It seems that the pro-McCann camp dispute this theory only on the grounds that the putative agent used mention in some tabloid press articles was Calpol Night, which wasn't available until after the event, and that the McCanns have denied in interviews that they sedated their children.

Well that and the fact that it is idle and unsupported speculation.......

 

[Nessie]

Also the mccanns were interviewd twice without being made offical suspects. Why would they make them arguidos before the 3rd interview, how would this ensure they are properly dealt with if they werent suspected of commiting an offense. Your theory makes no sense.

In the UK there are different forms of interview and people will be re interviewed as enquiries progress. The first interviews will be to gather information to assist with the search. As time progresses and there is no trace of Madeleine, since she is high risk due to her age foul play is suspected. Then interviews will become more formal as the police start to eliminate any potential suspect. Family members are commonly interviewed in such a way because statistically they are found to be involved in more cases than random would suggest.

 

[DrDave]

Just seen this going around:

 

[Information Analyst]

When people post things like this, it just about blows my mind. I can only surmise you don't have kids.

I haven't got kids (yet), and even I know that's not the done thing...

Madelein was three years old. Three. You cannot ever leave a three year old unattended and hang out 50 yards away. Seriously you can't even leave a kid that age alone in a room and be in the next room without the possibility of something going wrong.

Remember all those Public Information Films? "Don't leave an iron unattended... Don't leave a pan on the cooker... Don't leave an open fire without a secured fioreguard... Don't leave them in the bath... Etc..."

 

[Skepticemea]

 

[jargon buster]

With the wisdom of hindsight, yes. I'm sure many, if not most, parents have left their children for 10 minutes while they went to a corner shop, and the consequences could have been grave, but condemning them across the board is pointless in my opinion. I remember leaving our first born asleep in a motel room while we had dinner about 20 meters away, while we took turns checking on him. Some might consider us irresponsible parents. They'd be wrong.

No they wouldnt.
Why didnt you eat in your room?

 

[erwinl]

The only things i claim are.

1) they were negligent.

That could be argued. Certainly the actions of the parents before the disappearing aren't that unusual (wintness that more people did that, that evening).

2) There is some suspicious elements to the case

I would think so. A child has disappeared!

3) The police did think they were responsible for her disappearence at one point.

If the police didn't think that at one point they would not do their job properly.

4) Its possible and not beyone logic they could have sedated her

evidence?

I don't know. Some things are definitely red flags. Refual of kate to answer any questions in the interview. The fact as admitted by kate and Gerry in their interviews, that she often woke up during the night. They even had a reward chart for her at home, where she got stars for not getting up at night.

Now if your holiday plan is for your kids to sleep while you go out drinking, and you have a child that often wakes up, and was heard crying for an hour a couple of nights earlier asking for Mummy and Daddy, until the mccanns returned after 10pm. Considering that as doctors they had access to sedatives, then its possible they could have sedated her.

When kate found her missing. She was heard shouting "We let her down", when asked about this in her interview she refused to answer what she ment when she said it. Again, its a strange thing to shout.

The time lines are a bit strange too. Jane Tanner saw the man carrying a girl at 9:15, however someone was checking on the kids in the McCanns appartment at 9:05. He claims he listened at the kids bedroom which was ajar and didn't hear anything so assumed all was well. Thats a lucky child abductor because he must have been in the apartment at that time.

Saying that, there is evidence to say she was abducted, someone had gotten into the bedroom window of the apartment above the mccanns a week earlier and was chased off. There are reports of a man looking through the mccanns window from people not associated with the mccanns.

So i don't know, but its an interesting case for sure. I just hope we find out either way.

I see, by the way, that you dismiss the new timeline the police now has?

 

[pakeha]

Getting back to the OP, I'm still mulling over the implications of the Smith family sighting now being considered the centre of the current investigation.
It's a tremendous switch to how one views the events, since it means all the to-ing and fro-ing from the Tapas bar to the holiday flat is irrelevant.
Irrelevant because the disappearance of the child can be narrowed down to the moment mrs Mccann raised the alarm, correct me if I'm wrong.

This is a most confusing case, indeed, especially since the focus tends to slip from the actual victim.
My own interest in the case arose because like the vanished child, I have an incompletely closed iris and learning more about that feature made me wish to know how the little girl disappeared.

 

[jargon buster]

My own interest in the case arose because like the vanished child, I have an incompletely closed iris and learning more about that feature made me wish to know how the little girl disappeared.

And if Maddie had still been alive at the time that information was made available to the media it would almost certainly have sealed her fate.

 

[Information Analyst]

Unfortnately the Met revised timeline means there is still a lot of time in which a young girl could leave the apartment looking for her parents and find trouble or trouble could find her. But if bogus charity workers or suspicious men were making an indepth plan days earlier as crimewatch suggests I wonder why. To what end? Why that girl? Or more precisely it makes me wonder what has been withheld. Sorry for the useless speculation.u

Hey, we're all speculating, really.

That said, I'm not sure I buy the "bogus charity" angle, since it all seems too complex and calculated. I'm happy to stand corrected, but generally speaking, such child abductions are very rare. Most "planned" ones seem to be down to single offenders with a particualr obsession, or where more than one are involved, they seem more of the "drive through an unfamiliar area and grab the first kid they see" variety. I would guess that the complex pre-planned adbduction scenario appeals more to people - particularly other parents - because they can convince themselves that they can guard against it by being vigilant; they would spot the suspicious vehicle cruising the neighbourhood, or notice the strange individual/s who have been hanging around or following certain children.

What I have found particularly striking is the wording of this statement from one of the Britishd detectives, pertinent part highlighted: "There are elements of this case which on one reading of the evidence could suggest that there was an element of pre-planning or reconnaissance." Most of the press seem to have short-handed this into a pre-planned abduction being the most likely scenario.

 

[lionking]

No they wouldnt.
Why didnt you eat in your room?

And you'd be wrong.

Easy isn't it?

Despite some contentions in this thread, I'm convinced that most parents have left young children asleep while they have momentarily left their house. It's possible something bad could have happened, but extremely unlikely. Yes, parents would have been distraught and guilt ridden beyond belief if the child was hurt as a result, and (in hindsight) negligent. But irresponsible? Not in my opinion.

As to your second question, do parents eat in the same room their child sleeps in? Not usually.