Anyone watching Madeleine McCann ten years on?

[spottysuperted]

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

I have a friend originally from Portugal but she is settled here now and we had a conversation about this case. She read Amarals book and to her that is gospel. It's just so strange how different the reporting was out there. Our views differ greatly and I wouldn't bring the subject up again.

Yes it goes to show how influential the media is where you are.

I wouldn't have said other people writing books on the topic was any kind of positive. It's a shame Kate McCann was unsuccessful in her attempts, if anything.

The issue is more about reputation management than finding the child, on both sides.

I think the Mcanns probably take the view that anything that keeps the story in the spotlight is a good thing. Every time they stick their heads above the parapet they come in for loads of flack, but they must have resigned themselves to the fact that the it's worth the flack to keep Madeleine's memory alive. I'm slightly surprised to learn that people hanging out on this thread would baulk at reading a book on the subject - what's the difference between reading this thread (or watching Panorama for that matter) and reading a book?

I meant I'd feel the same way if anyone had written a memoir type book on the topic in general, not just the McCann situation.

I didn't realise someone actually HAS done their own version of the Mcanns one. That's weird.

LillianGish Feel the same about Panorama documentaries reliving/telling/reinventing events (depending on people's views).

I used part of a documentary about Jamie Burger for a lesson and felt unsettled through the extract. I can't help it. I find books, documentaries etc that just rehash theories and relive things unsettling.

The issue is more about reputation management than finding the child, on both sides.
I think it's getting to that point, sadly. And at the heart of it is a child.

The authors of the posts on here aren't making money from it, is the difference.

Why are people who are examining police files in the hope they can spot something, recognise a name/number - with the goal of helping to find MM - conspiracy theorists?

I don't believe for a moment that people closely examining police files are doing so with that goal. When they have been combed through by very experienced police officers, how likely is it realistically that a random on the internet is going to spot something they've missed?

But the crying for over an hour the night before would surely make you think that maybe leaving your kids the next night might not be the best idea?

As pointed out upthread, the evidence of that is a bit suspect. Who listens to a child crying for an hour without making inquiries at reception or similar?

Not quite sure what Pamela Fenn would have to gain by lying. It is interesting to read her witness statement to the police alongside Kate McCanns version of the same event in her book. If people read both then they can make up thier own mind about which one is more likely to be accurate.

As pointed out upthread, the evidence of that is a bit suspect. Who listens to a child crying for an hour without making inquiries at reception or similar?

What would she have to gain by lying? she might not have realised the child was alone whilst crying and maybe didn't want to stick her nose in.

But you can't disregard her evidence because she didn't act on the crying when others might have done. If the McCanns hadn't checked as often as they claimed, the timelines are open to a wider range of possibilities.

...'Who listens to a child crying for an hour without making inquiries at reception or similar?'...

And who leaves three children with a combined age of less than seven, alone, in the dark, in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country, out of earshot and out of eyesight for periods of at least 30minutes at a time - night after night???

...

I guess people don't always act how you think they should.

But you can't disregard her evidence because she didn't act on the crying [SOMETHING] when others might have done.

This is a true statement when applied to some actors in this business but is a false statement when applied to other actors.

A statement about hearing an unknown child crying for an hour isn't evidence. If the parents claim they were checking every half hour it's one word against the other.
There is no evidence to support the notion the McCanns were involved in their daughters disappearance.
"Gut feelings" don't count.

What would she have to gain by lying?confused

Who says she is? She may well believe she heard a child crying for an hour, doesn't mean she did and doesn't mean it was coming from the McCanns apartment.

The people they were on holiday with all had children that they had also left sleeping. It could have been one of them if they were in the same apartment block

A statement about hearing an unknown child crying for an hour isn't evidence

Well, it is evidence that a child was distressed for a long time and that it stopped when the door of the apartment opened. It's a police statement, so of course it's evidence, what do people use in court if not witness statements! You could say she was not a credible witness for whatever reason, and that you are more likely to believe one witness over another, but you can't say a statement made to the police is not evidence of some sort. That is the role of the police forces, to weigh up evidence.

Statements made to the police ARE evidence. Many people are convicted of crimes purely on the evidence presented within witness statements.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Pamela Fenn's statements was 100% accurate - but given she lived in the apartment directly above the one that the McCanns stayed in, it would seem unlikely she misheard where the crying came from. In fact, the McCanns haven't even disputed the crying - just the length of time involved.

"They haven't profited personally"

Having their mortgage paid by the fund is profiting personally. And there are plenty of people who donated who are unhappy that their donations were used for this.

how likely is it realistically that a random on the internet is going to spot something they've missed?

Very. They have numbers, names, descriptions on the police files that may mean nothing to the officers but could be spotted by some 'awful ghoul' and recognised then dismissed/investigated.

But sure, it's much more helpful to lambast those who look through and share the files. And even more helpful to base everything on your own blind opinion whilst ignoring fact.

But you can't disregard her evidence because she didn't act on the crying when others might have done

That's not the point. The point is that her failure to act gives rise to the reasonable doubt that it happened at all, or that she's exaggerating.

Very likely, PortCheese? So why has that strong likelihood not translated itself into anything concrete in ten years? What have you personally contributed to the hunt?

Why would she exaggerate? She'd have nothing to gain or lose in doing so?

Ceto how can you possible know that no member of the general public has spotted something in the files and been able to provide assistance?

Or are you only counting it as helpful if it leads to her being found?

Gosh this is odd.

Whilst people are going to blindly affirm opinion as fact, such as 'the dogs were shit', 'she's not guilty of anything due to the pain etched on her face', etc. sharing the files provides the other side to that opinion.

It shouldn't be so offensive to do either of those things. You don't see me personally insulting anyone who believes either side of the story, it's just unnecessary. Fair enough if I had come on here and shared complete lies and tried to pass them off as fact but I haven't. I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are yours. The difference being I'm not chastising you for sharing yours.