The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Okeydokey on 03.11.13 1:46

@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
You claimed  that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Carver on 03.11.13 1:48

@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
You claimed  that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.
My point was they would have had lawyers present as they were suspects, you said they tiptoed round admitting they were suspects in the murder of their daughter? that doesn't change the fact they were still suspects and would have been offered legal advice, that's my point. You mentioning their denial in being labeled suspects was irrelevant to my point about the lawyers. And it isn't evidence of anything.

Carver

Posts : 55
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Joss on 03.11.13 1:51

My take is the McCann's needed a Priest and the Media more than they needed a Lawyer at the time?

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by currio on 03.11.13 1:52

@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.

currio

Posts : 71
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Joss on 03.11.13 1:55

@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
You claimed  that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.
My point was they would have had lawyers present as they were suspects, you said they tiptoed round admitting they were suspects in the murder of their daughter? that doesn't change the fact they were still suspects and would have been offered legal advice, that's my point. You mentioning their denial in being labeled suspects was irrelevant to my point about the lawyers. And it isn't evidence of anything.
I thought people only needed a Lawyer if they were charged with something? Were the McCann's going to be charged with a crime by the Police? I'm not that well versed in this case, so can you tell me when the McCann's first had a Lawyer present in this case? TIA.

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Carver on 03.11.13 1:56

@currio wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.
Well he's obviously in denial.

Carver

Posts : 55
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Okeydokey on 03.11.13 1:56

@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:This article mentions other children in Portugal who have been abducted by complete strangers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-515348/Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance-linked-string-child-abductions.html
Yep, I remember that nonsense. When one looked into the case it was things like gypsies knicking clothes off lines and mothers being concerned for their children when they came upon the act of theft.

Let's hear you give some specific details if you're not trolling here.
So you're saying children don't get abducted by strangers? That doesn't happen?
No one's saying that. People are saying that when abductions take place you normally get a pattern of evidence to suggest an abduction took place. There is no such pattern of evidence in this case (that's already been explained to you). If you can point to any evidence of abduction please set it out so we can debate it.
Can you post any examples of these patterns of evidence in other cases? There are endless unsolved child-abductions with no evidence. Various independent witnesses gave statements saying they saw suspicious men stalking the apartment. That can be viewed as evidence of a paedo ring planning to abduct her. Then there's the increase in apartment break-ins, that could be evidence of a second theory, that criminals did indeed break into the apartment that night. Then there's the Smithman sighting which can also be viewed as evidence of an abductor. Then there's the Tannerman sighting that could still be evidence of an abductor. (He wasn't walking FROM the direction of the creche, perhaps SY are wrong)
Most claimed abductions of very young children turn out to be cases of parental involvement.

How many cases can you point to of children under age 4 being abducted by a stranger  (obviously - and of course Team McCann play on this fact as they do on all sorts of facts - lots are abducted in custody battles)? I can't think of a single one, apart from babies abducted by childless women - who nearly always are soon found out.

There is no evidence of anyone stalking the apartment. Do you never give any citations for your wild claims?  Various people have simply tried to remember people they saw in the vicinity. It is the nature of a holiday resort that there will be lots of new faces around all the time ....and yes many of them will be wearing "sinister" sunglasses.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Okeydokey on 03.11.13 1:57

@Carver wrote:
@currio wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.
Well he's obviously in denial.
We can all agree he's in denial...

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Joss on 03.11.13 1:57

@currio wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.
I would take anything the McCann's say with a huge bag of salt, LOL. Their stories are constantly evolving and changing.spin

____________________

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Okeydokey on 03.11.13 2:00

@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
You claimed  that the McCanns needed to appoint lawyers because they were "suspects" - and yet their claim was that they were NOT suspects - their claim was that arguido was a special type of witness. You can't ask me to explain their absurdities. Why did their spokesperson claim none of them had a mobile phone or watch with them on the 3rd May evening? It was an absurd claim. Next you'll be asking me to explain why they had no watches or mobile phones and telling me it's obvious they had them.
My point was they would have had lawyers present as they were suspects, you said they tiptoed round admitting they were suspects in the murder of their daughter? that doesn't change the fact they were still suspects and would have been offered legal advice, that's my point. You mentioning their denial in being labeled suspects was irrelevant to my point about the lawyers. And it isn't evidence of anything.
Obvious trolling. Nowhere have I claimed they murdered their daughter. The investigating Portugese Police officers didn't think they murdered their daughter. I'd ask you to withdraw that claim about what I said, if you wish to show you are not a troll.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by currio on 03.11.13 2:02

@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@currio wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@Carver wrote:
@Sietah wrote:
@Carver wrote:
Do you know that their lawyers didn't advise them to say no comment?
that brings me to the next question, why in the world do parents of a missing child need laywers to advise them how to answer police questions
Because they were made suspects? They weren't being questioned as witnesses.

Not only is that common prodecure, the police will even provide you with a lawyer in such an event.
The McCanns' spokesperson assured us that arguido did not mean suspect. So I am not sure what your point is.
Regardless of what the spokesperson said, arguido does mean suspect, and the McCanns were well aware of this. So I am not sure what your point is.
Odd...I watched the Levison Enq. last night where Gerry gave evidence. He said an Arguido was NOT a suspect. You can look it up on this forum for yourself.
Well he's obviously in denial.
We can all agree he's in denial...
Too true big grin

currio

Posts : 71
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by ultimaThule on 03.11.13 2:57


I can only hope you wake up and smell the coffee in the morning, Carver.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by tracey1270 on 03.11.13 3:20

The efit was not significant due to the Tannerman sighting, they could not afford to investigate both yet it seems that the efit was that trivial and unimportant that they felt the need to threaten legal proceedings if it was disclosed, they could have circulated the efit for free using the media but didn't no cost involved but afford it or not  they were well prepared to use the fund to sue their own PI to prevent them disclosing their findings?? never mind poor Madeleine, they just can't afford it, ruin their public farce of a reputation or disclose any evidence that could be relevant or show them in a bad light....money no object.

tracey1270

Posts : 38
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Joss on 03.11.13 3:28

@tracey1270 wrote:The efit was not significant due to the Tannerman sighting, they could not afford to investigate both yet it seems that the efit was that trivial and unimportant that they felt the need to threaten legal proceedings if it was disclosed, they could have circulated the efit for free using the media but didn't no cost involved but afford it or not  they were well prepared to use the fund to sue their own PI to prevent them disclosing their findings?? never mind poor Madeleine, they just can't afford it, ruin their public farce of a reputation or disclose any evidence that could be relevant or show them in a bad light....money no object.
Exactly, i feel this is what this case is all about really. Save the McCann's from the court of public opinion. Madeline who?

Joss

Posts : 1898
Reputation : 146
Join date : 2011-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

Post by Guest on 03.11.13 9:43

I just ploughed through this thread. I'm happy that I turned in early last night. It's much more digestible after a strong morning coffee big grin 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum