Anyone watching Madeleine McCann ten years on?

[spottysuperted]

They're framing it slightly differently now.. 😧 interesting from the bbc...

maisy

Its been said a number of times that they were questioned 3 times

When it got to the fourth time of being asked the same questions they refused

No idea if its true but by the sounds of it they did answer the questions

Sorry maisy cross post

Back to your last post

They apparently did answer the questions on numerous occasions

Mark Twain explains why some people appear unaffected by great tragedy:
"It is one of the mysteries of our nature that a man [or a woman], all unprepared, can receive a thunder-stroke like that and live. There is but one reasonable explanation for it. The intellect is stunned by the shock of it and but gropingly gathers the meaning of the words. The power to realize their full import is mercifully wanting. The mind has a dumb sense of vast loss - that is all. It will take mind and memory months, and possibly years, to gather together the details and thus learn and know the whole extent of the loss....It will be years before the tale of lost essentials is complete, and not till then can he [she] truly know the magnitude of his [her] disaster."

rufus If that's true, then I'd feel better about it because that must be frustrating.
If they just point blank refused because "it wasn't us and we don't want to be questioned" then it's weird.

I'm not sure it would set safeguarding alarms off. If they!d refused to co-operate with the police from the outset, then you might have a point. But the situation was slightly different at the point they were asked those questions.

Gerry did ignore the lawyers advice and answer the questions put to him and it didn't seem to clear him or move the investigation on at all.

She had been asked the questions before but refused that time on the advice her lawyer after being Made an arguido/suspect.

I agree with you there maisy

I dont know the details of the case at all but i have seen it mentioned before on here and it made sense to me

I can see why the police would want to keep asking the same questions and i could see why distraught parents would want them to stop asking the same bloody questions and find my child

That's what I mean Rufus.
They're damned if they ask, damned if they don't.
I think the entire thing leaves so many questions and the more questions there are the more people seem to divide into 2 polar opposite camps of "team mccann story" and "team conspiracy story" with both sides fundamentally arguing they are right despite no conclusive evidence either way.
I'm not entirely convinced that writinf a book about your experiences and documentary 10 years later helps much. Just leads to same questions being asked, same entrenched positions from all sides.

Those bloody questions! Have you read them? I'd be reluctant to get involved in that - did you drug your kids / did you want to let Madeline live somewhere else or whatever they were?

If the Mcanns were somehow involved why on earth would they have devoted ten years to keeping the case in the public eye? I get that they came under suspicion in the beginning - child abductions by complete strangers are rare so you would expect the police to some point to suspect the parents - but if they were guilty wouldn't they be happy to let things die down over the years and heave a secret sight of relief that they got away with it? For me, one of the most compelling reasons to believe they are not involved is their absolutely dogged determination not to let it lie - to keep their daughter's name and face in the public eye, to keep revisiting the circumstances of her disappearance to try and jog a memory or uncover another clue. Those are quite simply not the actions of people who have got something to hide. It would have been convenient for the Portuguese authorities to force a confession out Kate - they just want the whole thing cleared up so it no longer casts a shadow over their tourist industry (in the same way no one was advertising the burglaries that had taken,place just before the Mcanns moved in).

LillianGish
I've already said I'm not going to speculate.
I don't believe anyone has the full picture and it's unlikely it will be resolved in my opinion.

All I've said is that I find it annoying that people are "not allowed to speculate" but what that means in reality is people can post as much as they like giving the 'abducted view' and defending the McCanns but people aren't allowed to ask questions.
To me, if an issue is in the press and continually is being brought up time and time again part of that should mean an open discussion that makes a distinction between the horrific trolling they've had to deal with and people debating perfectly reasonable questions without being shouted down. As it stands, one side is allowed to speculate and push a version of events as the 'truth' and nobody else is allowed to say anything. I don't like that.

but people aren't allowed to ask questions People are constantly asking questions - that's the price the Mcanns play for keeping it in the public eye. I don't think it's particularly helpful to continue to vilify them - some people seem to take pleasure in it. They just have to suck it up because to do otherwise would mean giving up on their daughter. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It's the sort of discussion where every starts an assertion with "I think".

And that's the problem.

The facts in this case are very limited. Madeline was there, and then she wasn't.

There is so little evidence that people feel compelled to explain such a tragic event by the mental manipulation of certain events/actions/behaviour into a rationale as to what happened.

I don't know what happened that night, but I do disagree (and always have) that the behaviour of Gerry and Kate was "cold". I saw a couple who looked like they were on their last reserves of keeping it together in a truly awful situation.

I didn't follow this at the time but have just watched Panorama and I think the McCanns look completely devastated. Not that it matters what I think or how they look.

I think the fact that they were out to dinner with friends and they all left their children in apartments normalised it at least in that group, whether or not it was "normal" in wider society.

I can't bear thinking about it really. I wish I hadn't watched that.

People are constantly asking questions - that's the price the Mcanns play for keeping it in the public eye. I don't think it's particularly helpful to continue to vilify them - some people seem to take pleasure in it.

I'm against vilifying them. I think some of the abuse they've faced is awful.
BUT Sometimes I think people are too quick to suggest people asking questions is having a go at them.

Eg I feel odd about the not answering questions thing. Thankfully, people who've replied have been measured and it was a polite discussion. I'd be annoyed if somebody turned up on the thread and started all "why are you so heartless they are clearly done with being questioned etc".

The facts in this case are very limited. Madeline was there, and then she wasn't.
Exactly. Anything other than that is speculation, whatever conclusions people draw. Which is why I think if one conclusion is 'allowed', then other conclusions should also be 'allowed'. At the moment, one version is allowed to be discussed and the other isn't.

If the Mcanns were somehow involved why on earth would they have devoted ten years to keeping the case in the public eye?

Money?

By not letting it lie and continuing the 'search for Maddie' it deflects from the opposing conspiracy theory.

There is a good argument for both theories but the point is, there should only be one and it is the behaviour of the parents that has promoted the conspiracy theory. There is a reason this conspiracy theory exists and it is not typical in child disappearance cases.

Posters mention her looking broken - that could be a result of grief and equally guilt.

Many of the counter arguments on here to the conspiracy theory is lacking in source. Posters stating that the two had repeatedly answered the questions previously- where is the evidence for this?

I think it's naive to blindly debunk one theory in favour of another when it could prevent the truth from coming out, and I say that as neither a believer or skeptic.

Well put, Eats. This is probably going to go poof because all of these threads do as they always stray into speculation and erroneous conclusions, 'If it were me . . . '

It is NOT you, so you do not know.

Personally, I'm a function of the environment in which I was brought up, as everyone is. This means it would never have occurred to me to behave as they did. That's not to say it's wrong, it just would not have crossed my mind to do so because I was brought up in a very different milieu and even if I were placed in such an environment, and I have been at times, as I am foreign, it would not have sat well enough with me to do so and I'm also a stubborn person in some respects. That exact scenario wouldn't have been one I'd have been in but that is to say any similar situation with may have brought about a similar outcome would have come to me or how I might have behaved in such a setting. I don't know, I'd not have been in such a particular setting.

So to speculate on how I'd have behaved or what might have happened to the victim in such a setting is just that, speculation.

The upshot is that MrsDV and Pacific are right: there is always 'othering' on such threads and they wind up deleted.

I think it's naive to blindly debunk one theory in favour of another when it could prevent the truth from coming out, and I say that as neither a believer or skeptic.
That's my view on it.
It's why I think either neither position should be accepted for debate, or both of them.

A missing child should never be a debate

I agree with portia

I dont think it should be debated...and on that note I am off

I think the fact that they were out to dinner with friends and they all left their children in apartments normalised it at least in that group they'd gone on a Mark Warner holiday where you might have imagined (in those days) it was a safe place to leave your kids and organise a baby listening service of the type offered by so many hotels and resorts. I imagine if they'd been there on their own they wouldn't have left the kids, but being in a group with others who were doing the same made it seem like a reasonable thing to do. People can come on here and swear blind they'd never have done that, but hindsight is a wonderful thing - judging away because that's a way of reassuring themselves that it could never have happened to them. I've never stayed at a resort like that, but isn't part of the appeal the fact that they are child-friendly, the sort of place you feel safe taking your kids? I thought one of most interesting new facts thrown up by the Panorama programme was the Mark Warner employee with keys to all the rooms, with a question mark by his name who had subsequently left the company. Not to mention the three burglars - two of whom refused to be interviewed. If we're looking for conspiracy theories I can't help thinking it wouldn't have suited anyone in Portugal at the time to have focussed on any of these people because that would have suggested that Luz and Mark Warner in particular were not safe places for a family holiday. Much better to throw suspicion on the parents who wouldn't be going back.

The problem with the both sides should be allowed equal say is that
a) one side of this is libellous. The other side can't be guilty of libel since they aren't naming anyone specifically.

b) if the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine then chucking those sorts of accusations at them is an unspeakably cruel think to do.

I doubt it's worse than the pain of losing their daughter but I suspect it says a lot more about the people doing it than it does about them.

Great post Rafals

I'm watching the programme now. Did the third suspect they interviewed towards the end have learning difficulties? He came across very distressed.