ShakehandsTom - DFC Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) the girls blood in the car rented by the parents.....................................GUILTY!!! Perhaps this is a wind-up, and I'm just biting, but, is it not possible that the guilty person stole the car, and used it to commit the crime?.... Edited September 9, 2007 by ShakehandsTom - DFC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) I refer you to my earlier post and the disappearance of Peter Falconio.His body was never found (cos he's still alive, imo) yet Brad Murdoch has been banged up for life. I don't know the details of that case but did his girlfriend say they had been attacked by the guy. No one knows if Maddy has been killed so it would be difficult to charge anyone if no body can be found or if no one actually saw her being killed IMO unless someone confesses. Edited September 9, 2007 by kirkyblue2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamwork Expresso Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Can they be charged if they can't find the body? Not sure about Portugal, but a guy i used to work with was arrested and charged with murder when the Police in England found a blood stained handbag near his house, he eventually caved in and told them what he had done wiith the body, he had done it alright, and i wont be working with him again, he most likely will never get a release date. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Burgundy Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Perhaps this is a wind-up, and I'm just biting, but, is it not possible that the guilty person stole the car, and used it to commit the crime?.... that would mean either, the guilty party pre-empted the mccanns hiring the car and knew that was the car they would get...unlikely it's a coincedence...unlikely the evidence was planted..well if thats true someone must have had access to her blood 25 days after she went missing and planted it......unlikely I also find it unlikely that one or other managed to get away for long enough to hide a body. Blood on some clothing that was moved at a later date seems far more likely...but was it just blood they found in the car or other bodily fluids with traces of sedatives perhaps...more likely...I dunno. What I do object to, more than interested bystanders theories is the PAID representative of this family suggesting the findings of a police lab is ludicous...how fucking dare she....it's ludicrous that this family is allowed to leak details of interviews to the press through members of their family appearing on various tv shows. What the f**k does Philomena McCann understand about dna evidence...the fat f**k...all she understands is the dna of fatty foods...his brother is a another little turd publicly quashing tests carried out by police and ACTUAL EVIDENCE as opposed to the ridiculous conjecture they have wallowed in over the past four months...it's a fucking liberty...he also complained about police leaks as he recanted the alleged questions asked by the police, little ginger b*****d! Annoying bunch of b*****ds...the paid ginger rep, the fat sister and the baldy ginger brother...why are they given the time of day by the press? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 that would mean either,the guilty party pre-empted the mccanns hiring the car and knew that was the car they would get...unlikely it's a coincedence...unlikely the evidence was planted..well if thats true someone must have had access to her blood 25 days after she went missing and planted it......unlikely I also find it unlikely that one or other managed to get away for long enough to hide a body. Blood on some clothing that was moved at a later date seems far more likely...but was it just blood they found in the car or other bodily fluids with traces of sedatives perhaps...more likely...I dunno. What I do object to, more than interested bystanders theories is the PAID representative of this family suggesting the findings of a police lab is ludicous...how fucking dare she....it's ludicrous that this family is allowed to leak details of interviews to the press through members of their family appearing on various tv shows. What the f**k does Philomena McCann understand about dna evidence...the fat f**k...all she understands is the dna of fatty foods...his brother is a another little turd publicly quashing tests carried out by police and ACTUAL EVIDENCE as opposed to the ridiculous conjecture they have wallowed in over the past four months...it's a fucking liberty...he also complained about police leaks as he recanted the alleged questions asked by the police, little ginger b*****d! Annoying bunch of b*****ds...the paid ginger rep, the fat sister and the baldy ginger brother...why are they given the time of day by the press? Well said. In cases like this, no suspect* or their family should be allowed to use the media for propaganda. However should you be focussing your anger at the family members or the press for allowing them? *I use the word suspect in its general sense rather that the Portuguese legal terminology. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I think the key thing to remember here is that nothing has been said by the Portugese authorities in the last couple of days. Everything thats been published ( irrespective of how much fact is in there ) has been generated by the friends/relatives/representatives of the McCanns. Now, its understandable as the McCanns were planning to leave Portuagal this weekend that the Portugese police would want to reinterview them both - and rasie their status if the new forensic evidence ( which, remember comes from a reputable UK source ) points towards them in any way. What is probably less understandable is the McCann circus hangers-on using the increased attention to fill their wallets one last time. If I was Kate & Gerry I'd be pretty pissed off at the leaks coming fromt heir so called friends and relatives. My understanding though - is that the evidence that points to them is more than just circumstancial and it puts the entire party on that night under suspicion. Perhaps they have all colluded in this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 No. Which indeed unfortunately invalidates the basic premise of that unnecessarily large multi-paragraphed post. Taking a dispassionate view of this whole affair, however it turns out in the end, it shows how easily manipulated the public are, evidenced still in this thread. For example, how many people here know exactly what the McCanns and their friends version of events that night was? I don't, and I have kept pretty up to date with this. The reason why I don't is that this was never delved into too deeply, because the McCanns and the media were controlling the nature of the press coverage. Yet this was arguably the most important element of the night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 What I do object to, more than interested bystanders theories is the PAID representative of this family suggesting the findings of a police lab is ludicous...how fucking dare she....it's ludicrous that this family is allowed to leak details of interviews to the press through members of their family appearing on various tv shows.What the f**k does Philomena McCann understand about dna evidence...the fat f**k...all she understands is the dna of fatty foods...his brother is a another little turd publicly quashing tests carried out by police and ACTUAL EVIDENCE as opposed to the ridiculous conjecture they have wallowed in over the past four months...it's a fucking liberty...he also complained about police leaks as he recanted the alleged questions asked by the police, little ginger b*****d! Annoying bunch of b*****ds...the paid ginger rep, the fat sister and the baldy ginger brother...why are they given the time of day by the press? I agree with that. Of course a family member will stand up for one of their relatives as innocent in such a public case as this until proven otherwise, but to go on national TV to refute DNA evidence when it is plainly obvious she has not one fucking clue what she is talking about is a joke. What's worse is that the press in this country will take her unqualified opinion ahead of the qualified analysis of some 'untrustworthy wop'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 What I do object to, more than interested bystanders theories is the PAID representative of this family suggesting the findings of a police lab is ludicous...how fucking dare she....it's ludicrous that this family is allowed to leak details of interviews to the press through members of their family appearing on various tv shows.What the f**k does Philomena McCann understand about dna evidence...the fat f**k...all she understands is the dna of fatty foods...his brother is a another little turd publicly quashing tests carried out by police and ACTUAL EVIDENCE as opposed to the ridiculous conjecture they have wallowed in over the past four months...it's a fucking liberty...he also complained about police leaks as he recanted the alleged questions asked by the police, little ginger b*****d! Annoying bunch of b*****ds...the paid ginger rep, the fat sister and the baldy ginger brother...why are they given the time of day by the press? Well said. It is scandalous that these representatives have also been given such an easy pro-McCann ride on TV. They have been allowed to shamelessly attack the factual evidence on the Portuguese authority, purely on the basis that they personally feel it "ludicrous" that either McCann is involved. Brilliant! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Which indeed unfortunately invalidates the basic premise of that unnecessarily large multi-paragraphed post. Please care to explain how the basic premise of the post (unnecessarily large multi-paragraphed or not) has been invalidated? I'm waiting for some hard evidence to surface to implicate the McCanns in all of this before rushing to judgement. I presume that they're innocent until evidence is produced to eliminate the last scintilla of reasonable doubt. I want to see a coherent hypothesis warranted from the available evidence, not the evidence, such as it is, being manipulated to fit a preconception or prejudice. It's clear that the rumour that the police had found Maddie's blood in the rental car was false. If they had, I'd warrant that they'd already be well on their way to cracking the case and finding a body by now and the McCanns wouldn't be back in Britain. Sources close to the investigation (i.e. almost certainly the British lab who analysed the DNA evidence) have confirmed that the rental car only yielded a DNA sample that was a likely match for Madeleine. If the conventional "wisdom" (and if we're talking about easily manipulated or misled public opinion then here is a good example - the sheep have seized upon a scrap of misinformation and it has since, seemingly, morphed into an immutable truth) is now to be believed the police have the McCanns bang to rights. If the McCanns had (as this hypothesis seems to suggest) moved Maddie's corpse 25 days after her death in this rental car I'll wager we wouldn't be discussing minute, and inconclusive, traces of DNA that could have come from almost any object that Madeleine had come into contact with in the days before her disappearance and the Portuguese police wouldn't be trying to browbeat the McCanns into a convenient confession. If you want to suggest that the McCanns were guilty of murdering (or covering up the accidental death of) their child then produce a coherent, consistent and credible hypothesis to support that viewpoint. In the absence of such a compelling hypothesis, I prefer to presume their innocence and sympathise with their plight. Edited September 9, 2007 by John Doe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Saintsible Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Please care to explain how the basic premise of the post (unnecessarily large multi-paragraphed or not) has been invalidated? I'm waiting for some hard evidence to surface to implicate the McCanns in all of this before rushing to judgement. I presume that they're innocent until evidence is produced to eliminate the last scintilla of reasonable doubt. I want to see a coherent hypothesis warranted from the available evidence, not the evidence, such as it is, being manipulated to fit a preconception or prejudice. It's clear that the rumour that the police had found Maddie's blood in the rental car was false. If they had, I'd warrant that they'd already be well on their way to cracking the case and finding a body by now and the McCanns wouldn't be back in Britain. Sources close to the investigation (i.e. almost certainly the British lab who analysed the DNA evidence) have confirmed that the rental car only yielded a DNA sample that was a likely match for Madeleine. If the conventional "wisdom" (and if we're talking about easily manipulated or misled public opinion then here is a good example - the sheep have seized upon a scrap of misinformation and it has since, seemingly, morphed into an immutable truth) is now to be believed the police have the McCanns bang to rights. If the McCanns had (as this hypothesis seems to suggest) moved Maddie's corpse 25 days after her death in this rental car I'll wager we wouldn't be discussing minute, and inconclusive, traces of DNA that could have come from almost any object that Madeleine had come into contact with in the days before her disappearance and the Portuguese police wouldn't be trying to browbeat the McCanns into a convenient confession. If you want to suggest that the McCanns were guilty of murdering (or covering up the accidental death of) their child then produce a coherent, consistent and credible hypothesis to support that viewpoint. In the absence of such a compelling hypothesis, I prefer to presume their innocence and sympathise with their plight. I've got to say that I agree with that. The idea that they could have moved the body 25 days after the even with the media watching them is crazy in the first place - never mind the fact that surely if that is what had happened, there would be very conclusive DNA evidence! It seems to me that the Portugese wanted rid of them - and they've done it. Madeleine will never be found and the finger of suspicion will now forever ben on the McCanns. They'll never get over this - obviously. One point that did interest me today - a guy getting interviewed in Portugal said that they'd been digging up the road and drains back in May and huge amounts of concrete had been poured into them over that month............ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearealldoomed Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Depends on the legal system in Portugal, I believe in England the will go ahead without a body, Scotland you need a body! Off topic here, but I'm pretty sure that there was a conviction in the Arlene Fraser case in spite of her body never being found. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reina Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Yes, but that conviction is being appealed and I believe Nat Fraser is not in prison at the moment (I could be wrong though) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Yes, but that conviction is being appealed and I believe Nat Fraser is not in prison at the moment (I could be wrong though) Aye he's out of jail. But he's absolutely guilty as sin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) One point that did interest me today - a guy getting interviewed in Portugal said that they'd been digging up the road and drains back in May and huge amounts of concrete had been poured into them over that month............ There was a murder in the Inverness area (the one where the quary was investigated few years back) about 25 years ago when the A9 was being laid and she is under it. Yes, but that conviction is being appealed and I believe Nat Fraser is not in prison at the moment (I could be wrong though) I think he was released pending trial. She was fed to pigs was she not? Edited to finish the sentence! Edited September 9, 2007 by Rowan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reina Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 That's what I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 There was a murder in the Inverness area (the one where the quary was investigated few years back) about 25 years ago when the A9I think he was released pending trial. She was fed to pigs was she not? Apparently she ended up in a quarry or landfill. Can't remember where it was, but it is too treacherous to go searching through it in the hunt for her body IIRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearealldoomed Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Yes, but that conviction is being appealed and I believe Nat Fraser is not in prison at the moment (I could be wrong though) Didn't realise that. There was a murder in the Inverness area (the one where the quary was investigated few years back) about 25 years ago when the A9I think he was released pending trial. She was fed to pigs was she not? Shouldn't laugh but that's like a plot from The Sopranos. Edited September 9, 2007 by wearealldoomed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 l. She was fed to pigs was she not? It's the way she would have wanted... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LargsTON Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I don't know the details of that case but did his girlfriend say they had been attacked by the guy. Yep. Peter Falconio 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.