is there a 2nd Netflix McCann thread?

[creepyoraibu]

Sorry not aibu but I want to keep following it

The Geordie bloke interviewing the analyst clearly is a conspiracy theorist.. he asks the analyst "have you seen my other video?" Hes obviously trying to get "experts" onside who agree with his delusions.

How anyone can watch crap like that and actually believe it?! Its the most absurd thing ever.

Its scary the amount of crap that can be open to the public domain and presented as "fact".. and even scarier the types of "armchair vigilantes" who lap it up without question.

Sorry if this is a stupid question but isn't it illegal to leave children under 14 alone or something? Even if they didn't hurt Madeleine why weren't they prosecuted for some kind of negligence for leaving her and, even more so, the baby twins?

No, it is not illegal to leave children under 14 alone or something. There is no law about what age it is OK to leave children alone.

There have been one or two rare cases where people have been prosecuted for child neglect (I seem to recall) when a single parent has jetted off on holiday for a week in the sun and left their child at home.

There has never been any evidence of an intruder.

That’s because the police didn’t secure the apartment straight away. Tens of people were allowed to wander in and out of the apartment before any forensics were done.

As an anesthetisist she’d be even more likely to understand that sedation represses the respiratory system and wouldnt leave a sedated patient alone. The risk for SIDS would be enormous. Of course she didn’t sedate them ffs. Even if she gave melatonin, that is completely fine on prescription.

The Channel 9 podcast explores a lot of the questions the documentary leaves unanswered. Well worth a listen

omny.fm/shows/maddie/man-with-no-face#description

Peter Hyatt? If anything could convince me of the McCanns' total non-involvement in their child's disappearance then this 'analysis' was it. Far more so than anything the McCanns themselves have ever said or done. He has zero academic credibility. This is crime-novel stuff: there is no solid research underpinning any of the material he offers. Opinions without any credible evidence to back them up are worth squat. It also doesn't occur to him to say that even expert linguistic analysis is not an exact science.

The alleged abduction took place in 2003. This interview occurred in 2011 - eight whole YEARS after Madeleine's disappearance. Of course they're going to be talking about her in the bloody past tense. I could take some of his other claims apart point by point, but there are far too many to list. I'll just take his most convincing assertion: that of the McCanns' motivation for wanting to cover up an accidental death (together with the serious flaws in their 'baby-listening system'). These things are undeniable. The motive was there: they stood to lose their other children, their professions, their livelihoods. But following this Hyatt is the one doing the embroidering: precisely the same trait of speech he attributes to a not-very-accomplished liar. He's asking viewers to buy the scenario that in a state of shock on discovering their daughter, the McCanns: calculated an elaborate plan to conceal the kid before the searches started; dumped her body very effectively and efficiently in a place where it would never be found; agreed their cover story; ate dinner with their friends; sent their friends to check on their children in their stead, apparently while all this was going on; finally raised the alarm and called the police. And they 'did' all this within a very tight timeline, under the full gaze of 7 other people in a public restaurant.

Personally I doubt Thomas Harris himself could have dreamed up a scenario this implausible. In fact, the timeline if nothing else should be enough to convince anyone how difficult it would be for even the most ingenious and intuitive of parents to have accomplished such a feat.

Hyatt/Hall are disseminating misleading, defamatory stabs in the dark about an already suffering family, and are doing so with zero credibility. They both disgust me.

Even if she gave melatonin, that is completely fine on prescription.

Melatonin is not a sedative anyway. You can still be woken up easily.

ShatnersWigIsActuallyAMammoth thank you. I find it so weird that there's no law around not leaving babies on their own. I looked it up very briefly just now and it seems you're only breaking the law if you leave your children "at risk"... Surely these children were at risk though?

Not sure if this has been covered but surely if the McCann's are guilty, why have they courted so much publicity for Madeleine?

I remember watching GMTV, the morning after she'd gone missing (or whatever it was at the time) & Madeleine's Auntie, rang up & spoke live on air, desperate, as Gerry had rung her & said the police weren't doing enough & to contact the British press to get the story out there.

Why would they do that if they were guilty?!

It amazes me that so many people believed that the MaCann's harmed their daughter but have now changed their minds since watching the Netflix show, considering there is nothing new in it. There was no evidence against the parents back then and there is none now. I never believed that they were responsible and couldn't understand the way that people lapped up all that media nonsense about overdosing, putting her body in a non-existent fridge, and the non evidence blood findings etc etc.

Sorry *McCann's.

I watched the documentary on Netflix and I now think it's just another piece of propaganda. I have also watched all 8 of the Richard Hall documentaries on YouTube, he goes into a lot of depth and detail and shows just how much evidence there is. I would recommend people watch these documentaries if they want a closer idea of what really happened. Nobody really knows for sure, but the evidence is quite overwhelming.

Of course she didn’t sedate them ffs

Well people do stupid things. It’s not an impossibility.

I’m not close enough to the evidence to speculate one way or the other. But I see why its an hypothesis.

The alleged abduction took place in 2003. This interview occurred in 2011 - eight whole YEARS after Madeleine's disappearance.

Mariel Madeleine was born in 2003, she went missing in 2007.

SeaWitchly - thanks for correcting my atrocious maths. I've said before that I'm numerically illiterate!

That said, four years is still a long time and allows for the ability of a lot of information-processing in the meantime. And, yes, grieving: a thing that is often done while the person being grieved for is still alive (ask anyone with a longterm terminally-ill relative). When talking of events that occurred in the past, IMO, it's not surprising nor a point of particular contention that people would use the past tense.

I've just been watching the Natascha Kampusch story also on Netflix, and what is interesting is that the mother was also blamed there. A detective formed a theory that the mother was having an affair and killed Natascha and buried her in a pond- the police had to open a new commission to investigate these claims and dragged the pond. Luckily for Natascha's mother and Natascha herself, she was discovered alive after having been held captive for over eight years. People can be dogged, have all the right motives for continuing to investigate, have great theories on paper, but still be wrong.

Although it's worth noting that online there is a lot of speculation Natascha's mother was involved in potentially similar child abuse type activities to the Madeleine case, people in power, parents involved...the same allegations come around and around and stick or don't. I guess no-one will ever be exonerated even if Madeleine turned up (which I think fantastically unlikely).

I've said it before, Peter Hyatt and Statement Analysis is a great steaming heap of pseudo-scientific bollocks. He is a self-declared "expert" whose main qualification is a degree from bible college.

I’m glad there’s another thread I was going to post on the other one before it filled up.

I can see that it’s been talked about a little on this one - I thought it had been proven that the children were all given “medised” to help them sleep deeply while the parents went out? Is that wrong then?

Yes it's wrong. there's no evidence of that at all.

So pleased to see other sensible posts slamming the bloody "statement analyist"

Yes that's wrong. there'sno evidence of that at all

This is non sense. The McCann twins were unrousable despite all the chaos and noise when the alarm was raised and in fact the mother kept checking that the twins were still breathing. That is evidence - not conclusive, but evidence. Unfortunately the police did not check drug levels in the remaining children so there is no evidence there - however lack of evidence does though failure to test does not mean there were no drugs.

There has never been any evidence of an intruder

That’s because the police didn’t secure the apartment straight away. Tens of people were allowed to wander in and out of the apartment before any forensics were done.

This would have increased the chance of contamination of evidence, yet despite this the only sign of contact with the window was that of a hand print of the mother on the inside of the window.

Some children sleep heavily. That is not evidence they've been drugged. First time I've seen the claim she kept checking they were breathing.