People are spending far more time sabotaging McCann threads than the McCann enthusiasts are spending on tittle tattle. Pot and kettle.

[Spidermama]

These are developments. They're leading news bulletins the world over because so many people are following the story.

You don't have to, but don't spent so much time and energy ruining it for those who do please. Just look at other threads instead.

I used to be a nork clasper when the threads were devoid of real developments, but today I've had to move because I find the nork clasping camp (keepbumping and friends) is the loonier of the two now.

Yes, I think it's wise to reserve judgement. Broadly speaking, the Portuguese have never had anything like the crime we've had to contend with.

Their system is just different. They suspect someone, so they make them an official suspect. Official suspect then stands before a judge, who decides whether they're a suspect or not.

After that, they may or may not get arrested, just like any other Joe Bloggs.

I don't think their approach is necessarily flawed. I would argue that it's perhaps more civilized. The only reason these threads proliferate is because, as a nation, we are totally unused to the lack of information/speculation.

It was Haigh and it was the victims dentures that were found after he declared he had disposed of the bodies in the bath with acid - but he had confessed, not only to the suspected murder but eight other ones. Without a confession the evidence would have to be substantial like blood or adipose tissue.

UCM, an arguido is a formal suspect, not acused or found guilty. A suspect who is reliased with no charges can go anywere but must inform the police if leaving his home for more than 5 days. McCann can go where they want by now unless this situation will be changed. I think a judge must hear them first and decise otherwhise.

UCM if you're a suspect you are not supposed to leave the country. I think the McCanns were planning to come back to the UK this weekend, they will be unable to now.

As I understand in UK police gives many information. In my opinion it isn´t fair because suspitions must be proved and in the meanwhile people get wild accusations from the public and media. I think anyone deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty (even by the media).

OK I think the words 'accused' and 'suspect' are confusing me here. But let's wait and see.

yes, they're not on bail or anything so they can move around, I didn't think they were meant to leave the country though.

I'm sure I heard the BBC reporting that they woudl be allowed to come to Britain

I guess the Portuguese police figure that they're too famous now to hide

Either that or the report was wrong.

You only will be accused with strong evidence, not based in suspitions that cannot be proved. A suspect is free to go, an accused may not.

According to the update onsky news now, theywant to come home Monday, but dont want to look like they are running away.

sorry, space bar keeps jamming.

A gallstone?

That's absolutely amazing, that the policeman recognised it as a gallstone

They look just like exactly like bits of gravel

That's right, Ab! Totally fascinating case. He felt that he was immune from prosecution at first, because there was no body/bodies.

Habeus Corpus has its origins in the feudal Middle Ages, when people were bloodthirsty (yes, they are now, but individually so), and kingdoms were reliant on sole individuals. For the Duke of Parma to suggest that that the Prince of Milan was dead (and ergo, I inherit his land and fiefdom), it would be necessary to produce his body in order to prove it.

Even today, it's desirable to have the body. But I'm guessing it's no longer necessary.

is this where I get the Domestos out or the knitting?

Yes, we shall all have to google that particular (Haigh) case. I remember gall stones being mentioned, too.

No need, NB. We're talking about other stuff, and the judiciary in general.

Des, I need you right now on another thread because you are so much better at wording what I want to say.

What a wimp, you shout, yes I am but you are better than me, come.

Good for you, Skidoodle! Couldn't agree more...

Just a couple of points:

1. Libel does not have to reach some kind of critical mass. One comment can be construed as libellous.

2. A statement is defamatory if it tends to do any one of the following:

• expose a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt
• cause him to be shunned or avoided
• lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or;
• disparage him in his business, trade, office or profession

And if someone wants to sue for libel, they have to prove three things about the statement:

• it is defamatory
• it may be reasonably understood to refer to him/her
• it has been published to a third person

Also, it is important to note that publishing a libel you have heard (ie "Such and such told me that actress XXX is a child murderer") and claiming you're only repeating it does not stand up. You are equally liable.

Oh and just one other thing? All you guys slagging off 'the media' while gleefully repeating what they say? Do you not realise that you are also 'the media' now?

Enjoy your newfound media status.

i have never posted on a Mc Cann thread. Other than to say, please stop with the speculation and slagging off. But i have to say this out loud as it were.

I do not for one minute think that these poor people are implicated in any way with the disappearance of this little girl. I think they are being set up and it is now time for the British government to step in. Thank God they are intelligent people, articulate enough to fight their corner.

One thing is sticking in y gullet - if i remember rightly, the sniffer dogs were bought in on the Mc Canns dogged insistence. Didnt they have to push for this to happen? WHY wasnt this done in the first instance when the "evidence" would have been fresh and the results more reliable. Her car wasnt hired until 25 days after the event, so she hid the body for 25 days? Come on! These people are Drs, the would have realised that the risks with leaving a sedated child were unacceptable, and how anyway would they have had access to injectable sedatives for god sake. It all stinks of a set up, and im truely scared for them, and this is my reasoning, the reasoning i have had all along but never wanted to vocalise. This cover up goes to the highest levels in my opinion, there are some powerful influences affecting this case. Why the hell did the police act so slowly in the first place, incompetance? Or os that what someone very high up wants us to think. Yes well this might be a little far fetched?? No more far fetched than the theory of this poor mother hurting her child.

That's it, isn't it? In your opinion, the McCanns are above the law.

Evidence against them? Planted. Let's just discount it.

The mad (and terrifying) thing is, you could be right.

They have the media on their side. They have politicians on their side. And they have an influential section of the public on their side (white middle class parents who identify with them).

Who are these people?

These people are Madelienes parents. If they are guilty of this they are the coldest, hardest people on this planet who have conducted a media campaign to their own ends. That is simply not the case, these people have tirelessly moved heaven and earth to find their daughter. They are intelligent and articulate and have recognised that they can use the media in their campaign to do this. Do you REALLY think the media is on their side, Really? It just seems to me they word their articals very carefully by quoting the portugese media etc. They are still printing the outrageous accusations. No, one could carry off what is being suggested here. They just coudlnt, one of their friends would have realised. They could not have maintained it they just couldnt.

This is at best, a cover up for incompetant policing. At worst? It doesnt bear thinking about.

How the hell do you know?

Have you seen the evidence?

This is my opinion.

Madelaine is the real Victim here. Not her parents, although it must be devastating to lose a child.

Madelaine's rights must take priority over her parents.

If this involves suspecting and investigating her parents it must take place so that the investigation is complete.

A proper investigation with reliable evidence will clear the parents if they are innocent.