But why?

by hustling01 19.05.14 23:33

Why would all these people lie so much just for the mcanns? I cant see that so many people all saying ok mcanns i'll lie for you no probs i wont question you i'll say what you want me to, i cant see the reason.

by Liz Eagles 19.05.14 23:36

but why are you opening new threads again when it's been respectfully pointed out with a link for new members to ask questions?

by Guest 20.05.14 7:09

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'll just say here that the question you ask Hustling01 is a valid one. It wasn't until 2009 that I became aware of all the things about this story that didn't add up. Before then I had the occasional doubt but then I thought - nobody would keep this pretence up for so long - including getting all their friends and relatives to go along with it - would they?

Now I say with personal certainty - yes, they would.

I do wonder if all concerned sometimes wish they'd been honest from the start - how bad could the truth be?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.05.14 8:03

aquila wrote:but why are you opening new threads again when it's been respectfully pointed out with a link for new members to ask questions?

aquila, I think the answer to that is quite clear from hustling01's first post:

even if they found maddie remains nothing would happen to the mcanns or other it would be put down to an unknown sex attacker. Maybe theres no big conspiracy theory maybe the police genuinely believe in an unknown sex attacker and thats what there fully focused on after the cleared the group. Like them or not theres no real evidence against them as the dogs are NOT 100% reliable like you think they are.

by Woofer 20.05.14 8:35

hustling01 wrote:Why would all these people lie so much just for the mcanns? I cant see that so many people all saying ok mcanns i'll lie for you no probs i wont question you i'll say what you want me to, i cant see the reason.

Imagine you had a grown up son, maybe the youngest, who had a wife he loved and lovely children. Imagine he and his wife were upwardly mobile and doing well. Imagine, you know his wife has found it difficult to cope with having 3 children so close together - you have helped when possible. Imagine the eldest child can be difficult at times and imagine you`ve been told that your son`s wife cracked under the pressure whilst on holiday and lost her temper and something terrible happened. How do you feel and what would you do for your son?

This is just an imaginary scenario of course, but it gives an insight into how close relatives would react.

by woodforthetrees 20.05.14 9:25

Looks like hustling01 is from camp McCann as all posts i have seen point to that. Anyway...

I have to admit, i am yet to be 100% convinced. So far, i'm 90% convinced of the McCanns involvement in the concealment. My only hope is that shallow digs (wherever they may actually be taking place) turn up items which hold vital DNA evidence..... or not, to either point to a 3rd party purpotrator, or eliminate anyone else by only having Gerrys DNA on the items.

My only doubt is the lack of DNA on Gerrys clothes, or the whereabouts of the clothes and sports bag. I think if those items are found, it would answer a lot of questions

by Guest 20.05.14 9:30

woodforthetrees wrote:Looks like hustling01 is from camp McCann as all posts i have seen point to that. Anyway...

I have to admit, i am yet to be 100% convinced. So far, i'm 90% convinced of the McCanns involvement in the concealment. My only hope is that shallow digs (wherever they may actually be taking place) turn up items which hold vital DNA evidence..... or not, to either point to a 3rd party purpotrator, or eliminate anyone else by only having Gerrys DNA on the items.

My only doubt is the lack of DNA on Gerrys clothes, or the whereabouts of the clothes and sports bag. I think if those items are found, it would answer a lot of questions

I don't believe GM's clothes were tested for DNA, but in your opinion who's DNA would they be tested for if they had been?

by Guest 20.05.14 9:48

I always like to give posters the benefit of the doubt even when they appear to have an ulterior motive for being here.

It may be a genuine case of being unaware of the facts of the case which don't get widely reported.

If it isn't, well at least I tried!

by woodforthetrees 20.05.14 13:25

Hi dantezebu

I was meaning that say for example they find a bag...which contains DNA from the McCanns, plus Madeleine, then that links the parents to that bag This is great, however.... as it is their own bag anyway, a lawyer can dismiss any suspicion against them based on that fact (as they did with cuddle cat, clothing etc etc)

However, if there are no traces of anybody else’s DNA on a buried/hidden bag, whether blood, sweat, skin, from e.g the reported 'abductor' then it begs the question... "Why is only Gerrys DNA on a concealed bag and nobody else’s??"

It would insinuate that nobody else was involved in the disposal of artefacts associated with the case and thus point the finger of suspicion straight back at the parents, not to mention confirmation of poor Madeleine’s demise if cadaver scent is picked up too.

This would mean a fundamental shift of focus, to a unified approach to the investigation.

by lj 20.05.14 14:08

But why do you keep opening threads, while you have been told to put them on the newbie thread?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 20.05.14 14:33

Why also don't you ever reply to anybody on these threads? Any reason for the 'hit and run'?

by Snifferdog 20.05.14 15:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
aquila wrote:but why are you opening new threads again when it's been respectfully pointed out with a link for new members to ask questions?
aquila, I think the answer to that is quite clear from hustling01's first post:

even if they found maddie remains nothing would happen to the mcanns or other it would be put down to an unknown sex attacker. Maybe theres no big conspiracy theory maybe the police genuinely believe in an unknown sex attacker and thats what there fully focused on after the cleared the group. Like them or not theres no real evidence against them as the dogs are NOT 100% reliable like you think they are.

Hustling01 I find it interesting that you use the words sex attacker twice. Why so?

by Guest 20.05.14 15:58

The use of those words doesn't seem particularly odd to me as the McCanns have always been anxious to shout the paedophile angle from the rooftops; not of course that they think he (or even she) will be treating their daughter badly.

by Guest 20.05.14 16:40

woodforthetrees wrote:Hi dantezebu

I was meaning that say for example they find a bag...which contains DNA from the McCanns, plus Madeleine, then that links the parents to that bag This is great, however.... as it is their own bag anyway, a lawyer can dismiss any suspicion against them based on that fact (as they did with cuddle cat, clothing etc etc)

However, if there are no traces of anybody else’s DNA on a buried/hidden bag, whether blood, sweat, skin, from e.g the reported 'abductor' then it begs the question... "Why is only Gerrys DNA on a concealed bag and nobody else’s??"

It would insinuate that nobody else was involved in the disposal of artefacts associated with the case and thus point the finger of suspicion straight back at the parents, not to mention confirmation of poor Madeleine’s demise if cadaver scent is picked up too.

This would mean a fundamental shift of focus, to a unified approach to the investigation.

Hi WFTT, I understand your reasoning but unfortunately I don't think the absence of DNA should they find any artefacts will cause any shift of focus.
It didn't in the apartment.

by woodforthetrees 21.05.14 9:13

Hi dantezebu

It did shift the focus, the parents became suspects. However, because it was the McCanns accomodation, proving anything would be extremely difficult as their DNA would be everywhere.

The point being, if there had been some kind of concealment of articles outside of their 'comfort zone' so to speak, it becomes harder for them to talk their way out of it (with fund financed lawyers).

Maybe i'm just being hopeful, who knows.