Madeleine McCann investigation

[lyndie]

I saw today that possible excavations are to start in the resort where MM went missing.

Does anyone think the progress The Met have made is astonishing given the length of time that has elapsed? I can't help but wonder what progress could have been made if they had been involved at the start.

I really hope that somehow they can find out what happened and give her family some sort of closure. I know the ins and outs of what happened and her parents leaving her have been discussed at length on MN but from a crime point of view I would be very interested to see if the Portugese police had done enough or not.

There is no need for the prurient triumphant tone though.

Noone here has perfect knowledge of the case either.

It was a complex case in which positions became entrenched early on, the media got over-involved and nothing went smoothly. I can quite see why people might hold differing views, but plenty of posts on this thread go way beyond that.

The only people speculating and doing so are the ones intentionally trying to get the thread pulled.

Nonsense. Plenty is being implied.

For example, who was it who pointed to Pat Brown's 'work' as confirming the so called PT theory? Bonkersness. The woman is just peculiar, her theories freakish.

I think Sabrina and others have been unfairly treated. It is quite clear what belief in the PJ theory is and all this hush, hush, PM stuff is quite ridiculous. Some of the theories on the internet are quite incredulous. I have NO idea what went on that night, but someone mentioned Occam's Razor above - and I have to say I find the idea that the McCann's and ALL their friends covering up a tragic accident, disposing of their PFBs body and then popping out for Tapas far more far fetched than some of the other possibilities. The crime scene WAS poorly handled. Evidence is scant.

The trouble is porto, as maryz said, there is form on mn for people on the one "side" to pick fights when they know the thread isnt being deleted on its own. People of all opinions should be able to discuss what they think (without being libellous) without being goaded about it.

I don't think it's hush hush really just will get deleted if written here as ATM only one line of enquiry is acceptable in the UK press. Some people have no idea about Portuguese conclusion and are entitled to ask if try wish. If there was a support thread for the mccanns I wouldn't post on it or try and put my opinion on it as I would respect that POV even if I don't agree with it. I think it should be the same here. It is not like people who agree with amaral don't know what the other viewpoint is they do,I do and understand it too I just don't really subscribe to it.

I fully agree that everyone should be able to discuss it, but I don't think Sabrina was trying to pick a fight.

I am pretty fed up of reading that those who disagree with the ghouls those fascinated with discussing the case are doing so simply with the intention of getting the thread pulled. Let me say it simply:

NO I have posted on this thread because I disagree with the point of view of many of the posters on it. I think it's a point of view that is limited in it's logic and perspective and is just plain wrong.

But just because you disagree with a POV doesn't invalidate it. This is an online discussion forum and you are perfectly allowed to start a thread in support of the mccanns and the theory that their child was abducted and not have your view discarded either.

Sticks and stones mrs maturin.

Although mnhq may consider the persistant calling some posters names as goading, so probably not a good idea or you may end up banned. And yes, it does still count if you cross it out

Imagine how all of the other threads on mn would go if we werent allowed to correct shit printed in newspapers. Benefit claimers? Yep, all scum, hang them all. Asylum seekers, single mothers, pitbull terriers, muslims.

Why is "portuguese police" not allowed to be corrected (not saying their conclusion is correct btw), but that someone says "yay, scotland yard are on the case now, finally, bloody inept PJ" and cant be told, actually at the time uk police agreed and were instrumental in the use of the cadaver/blood dogs

But everyone knows what is meant by ghoulishness, right?

A discussion should be possible without it.

Where is the ghoulishness? The same could be said of naivety looking at it another way. We will have to agree to disagree as I don't think either side of the coin is here to be convinced of the others and change their view.

*ghoul (go?o?l)
n.

1. One who delights in the revolting, morbid, or loathsome.
2. A grave robber.
3. An evil spirit or demon in Muslim folklore believed to plunder graves and feed on corpses.

[Arabic ??l, from ??la, to seize, snatch; see ?wl in Semitic roots.] ghoul?ish adj.*

There is the meaning. I have not seen anything like this on this thread. It is just namecalling designed to shut people up. The only interest most people have in this case is for justice to be served for that tiny, innocent girl.

I don't think my 'view' is necessarily quite what you are assuming it is.

The ghoulishness is the minute picking over, the delighted seizing on anyone, anything that confirms the theory. Not all posters have done it

I've only seen one poster "delight in posting revolting detail". Twice.
And guess which "side" she falls on.

It is ghoulish IYO then That is fair enough but it is inaccurate.

The only revolting detail I've seen was posted by sabriba

... or last night's faux pas from MNHQ!

fideline perhaps you could ask MNHQ to delete your posts where you quote the 'criminal profiler'? They are inappropriate and it would be a shame if the thread were pulled because of them. Also since you are concerned about what MM's siblings could read online, then wouldn't it be better that they didn't accidentally come across such lurid claims in a thread that has otherwise only directed others to additional sources.

What I find distasteful is the assumption from some people that if you dare question the mccanns stance, you must be some bonkers conspiracy theorist.

I completely agree that some of the theories expounded upthread from American crime 'groupies' are indeed completely nuts.

However, it is entirely possible to hold this position: that a child is missing (that fact is indisputable) and that none of us know why, and that there is no evidence to suggest why...no evidence of abduction, accident, anything. It's also the case that many of us feel very uncomfortable with the orchestrated PR campaign by the mccanns, which swung into action pretty much immediately. And issues like the lack of cooperation with a reconstruction. Some people have asked how a reconstruction would have solved the puzzle... They are missing the point. A reconstruction isn't to instantly solve anything... It is to clarify timescales and events. It's a perfectly normal thing to do in such a situation. When you are enjoying a normal evening (as that fateful night was, until MM went missing) then you simply aren't going to remember every detail. Imagine if you'd been out to a restaurant a few nights ago and someone later questioned you: 'what time did the lady with a red dress walk in ?' Or 'did the man with the grey shirt leave before the man with the white shirt?' There would be huge variation in people's responses- that's quite normal. What wouldn't be normal is for everyone in the restaurant to give an exact matching response- that would actually look like people had colluded to synchronise versions. What a reconstruction does is build up as accurate a picture as possible. So, if said lady in the red dress was seen by someone before she entered the restaurant, that would add to the information and help to produce accurate timelines.

Fwiw I don't think for a moment that the mccanns were involved in the disappearance of their daughter. I don't think their friends were either (though of course this is just my opinion, none of us know) My point is that it's quite possible to believe that, while simultaneously believing that the PR campaign and the way sites like MN have been so defensive of them, have actually not been helpful. (Though i do think MN has over the years Become more balanced about it and doesnt automatically delete anything whifh dares question the mccanns. In the early days I wondered whether there was a friend of the mccanns at MNHQ because It seemed Like sacrilege to dare question them in any way.)

Ultimately There are many inconsistencies as to what happened that night. None of us know the plain facts, and I suspect we will never know though of course one desperately hopes for answers.

It is surprising, to say the least that MNHQ run everything past former (not cleared) suspects in an unsolved crime.

I've always ascribed the inconsistencies to the fact that the McCanns (particularly Gerry) were determined to defend their own reputations at any cost - that is what the PR campaign and libel action was all about - not finding Madeleine.

I agree Janey, I have no idea what happened that night. I know that the way the Mccanns have behaved, including the intense PR to keep the case open, which is (contrary to popular belief) just as likely to be the actions of a guilty part as an innocent one. You just have to look historically to see that.

The way the fundraising has been spent too, on silencing people and withholding really important information is a bit odd.

Are the macans still classed as suspects?

Kate does seem more visabily broken than her husband, poor woman. Maybe the reputation thing keeps him going.