Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

To clarify, something about this case has always seemed off to me. My theory on the sedating of Madeline is the solution to the "offness."

Too many things don't add up. I do NOT think the parents abducted or killed their child. I think they are withholding that they gave her a sedative because it would only be worse. They are two doctors and have two other kids. Opening up that can of worms would have, back then, creates an even worse maelstrom and removed any sympathy they had from the public. So they kept it to themselves.

That's my take. It's why she knew immediately that she had been abducted.
 
Last edited:
IamFreeCanIGo said:
It was posted in response to people saying they were not neglectful. Are you just trolling? How can you not follow the conversation, its really annoying.
Click to expand...

You're new on here posting wise. Just a heads up. It's common practice on here for people to treat each new post as a stand alone, rather than connecting it to the flow of the conversation. It drives me up the wall as well. But you get used to it. :cool:
 
jargon buster said:
Thats fair enough but these are people on holiday who want a quiet night to get bladdered.
Click to expand...

Your descriptive is how I describe uncaring parents who leave children alone all evening whilst they get paralyticalyy drunk. Or even go on holiday leaving the kids at home.

What about parents who sit at home watching TV and getting drunk whilst their child is out roaming the streets getting up to goodness knows what?

I do not think they were bad parents. I think they were very unlucky as child snatching is very rare and they had made more provisions than many parents. But also less than other parents would.
 
Nessie said:
You are missing the point. With no definite leads at some point the McCanns are going to be treated as suspects. That is not odd or unusual. Anyone who wants to use that to cast no smoke without fire aspertions against the McCanns needs to be aware that is not very sceptical and it is bad for any chance of a proper investigation.

Miscarriages of justice are more likely when the police get target fixation and try and fit evidence into their suspicions.
Click to expand...


Right, so according to you, based on no evidence, the PJ just made them suspects because there was no definite leads and doing so would help the investigaion in someway that you cannot give an example off, even tho they really didn't believe the mccanns did, but even tho the police didn't believe they really did it, the lead investigator released a book saying he believes they did it, but that does not count because you think hes a money grabber?

ahhahahahahahha
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
Right, so according to you, based on no evidence, the PJ just made them suspects because there was no definite leads and doing so would help the investigaion in someway that you cannot give an example off, even tho they really didn't believe the mccanns did, but even tho the police didn't believe they really did it, the lead investigator released a book saying he believes they did it, but that does not count because you think hes a money grabber?

ahhahahahahahha
Click to expand...


Dude, giving someone an arguido status avails them to rights. It's basically no different than reading an American suspect their rights when they go into a police interview rather than simply interviewing them. It's letting them know they have rights, they are considered "possible suspect' without actually being arrested or accused.
 
truethat said:
Dude, giving someone an arguido status avails them to rights. It's basically no different than reading an American suspect their rights when they go into a police interview rather than simply interviewing them. It's letting them know they have rights, they are considered "possible suspect' without actually being arrested or accused.
Click to expand...


Right, but why do that? They could interview them anytime. In fact making kate an arguido actually made her refuse to answer questions. We know the PJ suspected them otherwise how do you explain amarals book?
 
Exactly. That's the point of it. To avail the suspect to their rights in order to build a case. It's happened many times and the person is not eventually arrested. But if the protocol is not followed you restrict what is admissible in court.
 
Just reading the summary of Amarals book, it seems they suspected the mccanns may be suspects from within 12 hours. He mentions it was good to go along with a kidnapping tho because it ment more resources.

Another thing i find suspicious is how convenient their timeline is. I personally think they were worried about being accused of neglect but fabricated a timeline of visits, but then they would have to explain why they didn't see maddy.

So you have somone who listens at the shutters and hears nothing, you have Matthew Olfield enter the apartment and see the twins, but not bother to check on poor maddy who has been abducted according to Jane Tanners report at the time.

Remember the window was apparently jimmied open according to the McCanns and Jane tanner had seen the man walking with the child at 9:15, but matthew Oldfield was in the apartment at 12:30 but didnt notice anything wrong with the windows.

No wonder they had to change the timeline.
 
I think the reason people react to you the way they do is that you are hung up on the minutiae of suspicion without following it through logically.

Unless the McCaan's were total sociopaths, they would have been blindsided by her death. Unless they had planned to kill her in advance, they would not have been able to be confronted with a dead child and have disposed of her body with no evidence and then gone on their merry way faking it out.


You can be suspicious and that's pretty much what my angle is addressing. The things that "don't add up" can be explained if they drugged her and didn't admit it to the police.
 
Nessie said:
Your descriptive is how I describe uncaring parents who leave children alone all evening whilst they get paralyticalyy drunk. Or even go on holiday leaving the kids at home.

What about parents who sit at home watching TV and getting drunk whilst their child is out roaming the streets getting up to goodness knows what?

I do not think they were bad parents. I think they were very unlucky as child snatching is very rare and they had made more provisions than many parents. But also less than other parents would.
Click to expand...

Rarer than you might think, there is no evidence Maddie was snatched as yet. ;)

If you make the decision to have children and have three close together, whilst they are young you should make them your priority.
In the case of the McCanns they didnt ,they left them in a room while they went drinking.
We didnt have may holidays as children, we had no money, we did have a week at a holiday camp and we didnt get left alone in a chalet while my parents went boozing.
 
The things that "don't add up" can be explained if they drugged her and didn't admit it to the police.
Click to expand...
Dont you mean "gave her half a tablet of benydryl"?
'Drugged' sounds a bit suggestive they did something horrible ;)
 
jargon buster said:
Rarer than you might think, there is no evidence Maddie was snatched as yet. ;)

If you make the decision to have children and have three close together, whilst they are young you should make them your priority.
In the case of the McCanns they didnt ,they left them in a room while they went drinking.
We didnt have may holidays as children, we had no money, we did have a week at a holiday camp and we didnt get left alone in a chalet while my parents went boozing.
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion.
 
IamFreeCanIGo said:
It was posted in response to people saying they were not neglectful. Are you just trolling? How can you not follow the conversation, its really annoying.
Click to expand...

No I'm trying to find out where your focus of interest is.
Placing blame on the parents for being neglectful or deducting what exactly happened that night.

Sometimes it looks like it is primarily for the feeling of neglect by the parents, with also the thought that the parents are victims as well. But sometimes it feels like the blaming of the parents go further and go into the territory of them having something to do with the disappearing itself.
That's why I asked these questions.
 
erwinl said:
No I'm trying to find out where your focus of interest is.
Placing blame on the parents for being neglectful or deducting what exactly happened that night.

Sometimes it looks like it is primarily for the feeling of neglect by the parents, with also the thought that the parents are victims as well. But sometimes it feels like the blaming of the parents go further and go into the territory of them having something to do with the disappearing itself.
That's why I asked these questions.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with my interest is, all that matters is the facts. The fact is they were neglectful, even if i think their daughter was abducted by aliens, it does not change that fact.
 
The other point that hasn't been explained at all is why, if the McCanns are "culpable", do they not simply let the case rest, rather than peruse it so vigorously?
 
lionking said:
The other point that hasn't been explained at all is why, if the McCanns are "culpable", do they not simply let the case rest, rather than peruse it so vigorously?
Click to expand...

Thats kind of like asking, if serial killers don't want to be caught, why do they want people to know they did it.

If Robert Menard is lying why did he spend so long posting on this forum where people continually debunked him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom