"Fresh agony for the McCanns"

Bishop Brennan wrote:


Exactly.  And so we are unanimous - even Realist now agrees : If Kate had nothing to hide she would have answered.  That she refused meant that we can infer guilt and that she was likely following legal advice to avoid arrest and conviction.  

Opinions seem to differ as to whether Gerry should have done the same or not.  But on the central inference of guilt from Kate's silence and subsequent refusal to do the reconstruction - all are thankfully now in agreement.  Yay!  

Roidininki wrote:

aquila wrote:

Roidininki wrote:

 We shall have to agree to differ on that then ? But tell  me , why you think Kate McCann refused to answer ?

Au contraire. You tell the forum why you think Kate McCann refused to answer.

Because she had been advised by her lawyer not to answer.

Realist wrote:Having lit the blue touch paper, I'd stand well back if I were you.

whodunit wrote:

Roidininki wrote:

aquila wrote:

Roidininki wrote:

 We shall have to agree to differ on that then ? But tell  me , why you think Kate McCann refused to answer ?

Au contraire. You tell the forum why you think Kate McCann refused to answer.

Because she had been advised by her lawyer not to answer.

You're not doing your client any favors in the court of public opinion. Arguing legal technicalities may work before a judge but out here in the real world where people have a  heart that breaks for a missing, probably dead little girl it just pisses us off. Even jurors don't appreciate a strictly technical line of defense in a case like this. [and yes I have some experience in the legal field so please don't send back a lecture ala your comrade 'Realist'] Jurors are people. They want to know the friggin' answers to the 48 questions.

In any case, we're here to push back against the massive public advocacy mounted on behalf of the McCanns by the UK govt and the world's media. I don't think many here are interested in joining in, just fyi.

Roidininki wrote:

whodunit wrote:

Roidininki wrote:

aquila wrote:

Roidininki wrote:

 We shall have to agree to differ on that then ? But tell  me , why you think Kate McCann refused to answer ?

Au contraire. You tell the forum why you think Kate McCann refused to answer.

Because she had been advised by her lawyer not to answer.

You're not doing your client any favors in the court of public opinion. Arguing legal technicalities may work before a judge but out here in the real world where people have a  heart that breaks for a missing, probably dead little girl it just pisses us off. Even jurors don't appreciate a strictly technical line of defense in a case like this. [and yes I have some experience in the legal field so please don't send back a lecture ala your comrade 'Realist'] Jurors are people. They want to know the friggin' answers to the 48 questions.

In any case, we're here to push back against the massive public advocacy mounted on behalf of the McCanns by the UK govt and the world's media. I don't think many here are interested in joining in, just fyi.

Do you really think you have ,we have,  a right to demand answers to those questions ? Please stop reminding me about a  probably dead little girl,  her name is Madeleine  . I have  followed this case since news broke that she was missing,   shed tears for her and I'm not easily moved.   You think I care about the  McCanns ? How wrong you are .

MaryB wrote:If there is some dangerous child stealer/abudctor out there then wouldn't you think that all witnesses and anyone involved would do everything they could to help the police enquiries.  Answering every question to the best of their ability and doing reconstructions and so on.  Anything to catch the culprit.

Verdi wrote:@Roidininki wrote:  Do you really think you have ,we have,  a right to demand answers to those questions ?

Apart from any inevitable emotional response by the world at large, you need to remember that the McCanns invited the public to share their lives by way of their media presence - which incidentally was never about their daughter Madeleine but always about their own situation.

As with any PR initiative, you can't expect only positive feedback - the negative comes hand in hand.  As I say, the McCanns invited us into their world and pleaded with us to get involved with assisting their plight and help finding their little lost daughter, it naturally follows that we, the public, want answers to questions that the parents have failed to provide.

Is that so unreasonable - the UK and Portuguese public are paying for this charade.

Realist wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:


Exactly.  And so we are unanimous - even Realist now agrees : If Kate had nothing to hide she would have answered.  That she refused meant that we can infer guilt and that she was likely following legal advice to avoid arrest and conviction.  

Opinions seem to differ as to whether Gerry should have done the same or not.  But on the central inference of guilt from Kate's silence and subsequent refusal to do the reconstruction - all are thankfully now in agreement.  Yay!  

I've never been of a differing opinion vis a vis Kate McCann having something to hide, Bishop, so yes, we are in total agreement on this issue. We got there in the end

My only issue was the drawing of inferences from a suspect's right to silence. Had I been in Kate McCann's position and the police were treating me as a witness/victim, I would have answered all their questions, had they been treating me as a suspect, I wouldn't have answered any questions.

I'm of a very different opinion of that from you Realist...........If I knew I was innocent but the Portugese police were treating me like a suspect, I would have answered any question they asked me!
JohnyT

Verdi wrote:@Roidininki wrote:  Do you really think you have ,we have,  a right to demand answers to those questions ?

Apart from any inevitable emotional response by the world at large, you need to remember that the McCanns invited the public to share their lives by way of their media presence - which incidentally was never about their daughter Madeleine but always about their own situation.

As with any PR initiative, you can't expect only positive feedback - the negative comes hand in hand.  As I say, the McCanns invited us into their world and pleaded with us to get involved with assisting their plight and help finding their little lost daughter, it naturally follows that we, the public, want answers to questions that the parents have failed to provide.

Is that so unreasonable - the UK and Portuguese public are paying for this charade.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Verdi wrote:@Roidininki wrote:  Do you really think you have ,we have,  a right to demand answers to those questions ?

Apart from any inevitable emotional response by the world at large, you need to remember that the McCanns invited the public to share their lives by way of their media presence - which incidentally was never about their daughter Madeleine but always about their own situation.

As with any PR initiative, you can't expect only positive feedback - the negative comes hand in hand.  As I say, the McCanns invited us into their world and pleaded with us to get involved with assisting their plight and help finding their little lost daughter, it naturally follows that we, the public, want answers to questions that the parents have failed to provide.

Is that so unreasonable - the UK and Portuguese public are paying for this charade.

Especially as they asked for public donations which they used to pay their mortgage and sue those who got a bit too close to the truth.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

As opposed to having a "pact of silence" you mean?

Or "confusion is good"? you mean?

plebgate wrote:Having asked the general public for help, both SY, BBC and Mr. & Mrs. must have known that the general public might possibly be asking questions as to what the outcome of their Crimewatch programe was don't you think Roidiniki?
You are not being very Realistic to my mind if you think that would not happen.

hee hee.  Not being very Realistic at all.

Realist wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

As opposed to having a "pact of silence" you mean?

Or "confusion is good"? you mean?

It is true that every indication points towards the McCann's complicity in the probable death of their daughter, Get'em, that is except for one and it is this one point which persuades a large percentage of the public that they are innocent.

This one point is of course that instead of running like a thief when realising 'they had got away with it,' they've made great efforts to maintain a high profile, even insisting upon the police reopening their case. If indeed they are guilty, this is a high risk strategy. TDVFC (Turkeys don't vote for Christmas) Rightly or wrongly, this is the public perception of the McCanns.

Its a bit of an enigma in much the same vein as sane minded people do not turn accidental deaths into murder enquiries, equally, sane minded guilty people don't insist upon the police reopening their case.

Verdi wrote: Silence implies guilt v. answer question implies innocence. 

Roidininki wrote:

Verdi wrote:@Roidininki wrote:  Do you really think you have ,we have,  a right to demand answers to those questions ?

Apart from any inevitable emotional response by the world at large, you need to remember that the McCanns invited the public to share their lives by way of their media presence - which incidentally was never about their daughter Madeleine but always about their own situation.

As with any PR initiative, you can't expect only positive feedback - the negative comes hand in hand.  As I say, the McCanns invited us into their world and pleaded with us to get involved with assisting their plight and help finding their little lost daughter, it naturally follows that we, the public, want answers to questions that the parents have failed to provide.

Is that so unreasonable - the UK and Portuguese public are paying for this charade.

I know,I know , all of that,  but terrible as it is I don't see that the public can demand her to answer.

Realist wrote:

Verdi wrote: Silence implies guilt v. answer question implies innocence. 

Not necessarily, Verdi, you might be surprised as to the number of guilty people who think they can talk  their way out of police stations. The prisons are full of 'em.