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

Game over?

Page 24 of 25 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by tigger on 06.04.14 6:49

@lj wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?!  Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites.  However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case. 

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

I remain of the opinion that you cannot tell members from this forum what they can write elsewhere. Sorry No Fate Worse Than De'Ath, I have my nails in but this as friendly as I can be. BTW I did not see anything about planning attacks?

Sorry my english today sucks. I have been speaking 4 languages all day, my head is spinning and I really can't find the right words so let me give you a quote:

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

What I think will happen is that the most PJ can come up with is hiding the body, and maybe neglect. I wonder if the statute of limitations won't come in  play then. But even if they are charged I think CR will do their thing, everyone will stall and stall. I think in the end the McCanns won't go to Portugal on free vacations anymore, the Portuguese are not heart broken about that and nothing will happen. The case goes silent until a body is being discovered.

Just putting my ha'penny worth in.
The above exchange is an excellent example on how to discuss a difference of opinion and conviction rationally and politely.

My opinion in this is that if a member has a high profile, either through generally being well informed or being a frequent and long-time poster, it is incumbent on them to be careful what is stated as fact when it is only an opinion. Especially elsewhere.
For one thing JH has the distinction of being under constant scrutiny for legal reasons.

As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.

So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 8:39

The Police Officer reply to member's question about " Dogs indices and Maddie died in the apartment" (not verbatim)  as "that's not strictly true" (verbatim) happens to be in contradiction with AR's remark that "she did not leave the apt alive".  So did the Papers misquote Redwood or twist his words?  There is no way of knowing whether journalist took Redwood's words out of context or not.

What we do know is what one Grange Officer said to member here.
The Officer's reply does not invoke confident they are looking at the death theory, not at the "death in the apt' theory anyway.
The "Not strictly true" can be not strictly true the dogs are reliable, or "Not strictly true" she died in the apartment, or "Not strictly true" any of the two components in the member's remark applies at all.

The ambiguous "that's not strictly true" remark is of no value at all.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 9:13

@sharonl wrote:
We should consider the reason that this review was set up in the first place.  Remember that Theresa May was against the idea to start with and only agreed to it under pressure from David Cameron who was told by Rebekah Brooks that he would be exposed in the headlines every day if he didn't comply with her request.

Theresa May may have turned down the Mccanns but from the MET's FOI response letter it would appear she agreed to Portuguese request to allow MET to participate in the Review.  It's apparent she isn't against a Review except it has to be taken in the faith of right perspective.


Before the review was set, we had the McCann private detectives Metedo 3, Oakley International and Alphaig supplying the press with the latest nonsense on the case.  We had sightings galore, witnesses galore and many other spoof articles about what the PI's were up to.  Since the arrest or imprisonment of most of these clowns these stories seem to have dried up and we have had to make do with mystery men, un-named witnesses, sources and dead paedophiles..

So what has this review achieved?

Nothing else has been achieved, and if it had what could the Met police do about it?  They have no jurisdiction in Portugal, they may not even be recognised as police officers in Portugal.  To make an arrest they would need the assistance of the Portuguese Police, otherwise they may be seen as running a case alongside the official one or interfering, they may even get arrested themselves.

The invited on board MET must observe the Portuguese rules.
For a workable relationship mutual respect must be a given, relatively anyway.
No reason why MET wont be accorded due respect but they can't operate UK rules in Portugal and expect to ride roughshod over their host.




The British police have even stated that this is a case for the Portuguese Police, we are just assisting them.

Notice how there have been fewer sightings since the review started, the press now focus on what they say that the Met are doing.  Notice how the press stories have changed from weekly sightings to weekly suspects.

For me, this review is nothing more than a PR exercise, set up to keep Rebekah Brooks happy and to protect Cameron from adverse publicity in the headlines.

Imagine if there was no review, the press would have no story to sell.


No review = more pseudo sightings, more TV and Press appearance by the odious pair begging for money and maybe even selling all sorts all in the name of their untiring search.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by Guest on 06.04.14 9:17

@ Ayoyo 9:39
I wonder if the question had been "The dogs indicated death in the apartment", the officer might have replied: "Yes, that's true" ...

The follow-up question then might have been "And on  items belonging to McCanns and nowhere else" and the officer replied .... ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by PeterMac on 06.04.14 9:25

@tigger wrote:
As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.
So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.
Hillsborough was 25 years ago, and they are starting again.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 9:26

Châtelaine wrote:@ Ayoyo 9:39
I wonder if the question had been "The dogs indicated death in the apartment", the officer might have replied: "Yes, that's true" ...

The follow-up question then might have been "And on  items belonging to McCanns and nowhere else" and the officer replied .... ?

Go backward to refer to the dialogue.

The dogs and death inside the apt were mentioned in a one-sentence question by the member and met with that reply from the Officer.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aquila on 06.04.14 9:34

@PeterMac wrote:
@tigger wrote:
As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.
So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.
Hillsborough was 25 years ago, and they are starting again.
Documents can't be UN-shredded. Technology can 'go wrong' - just take a look at the almost convenient malfunction of a tape recording in one of the rogatory interviews. Digital records can just disappear or be manipulated.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by Guest on 06.04.14 9:39

@aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:@ Ayoyo 9:39
I wonder if the question had been "The dogs indicated death in the apartment", the officer might have replied: "Yes, that's true" ...

The follow-up question then might have been "And on  items belonging to McCanns and nowhere else" and the officer replied .... ?

Go backward to refer to the dialogue.

The dogs and death inside the apt were mentioned in a one-sentence question by the member and met with that reply from the Officer.
***
I should have done that before posting and now just did,  but cannot find it.
Can you give me a pagenumber  please, or remind me of the member, who originally posted it? TA

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 9:39

@PeterMac wrote:
@tigger wrote:
As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.
So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.
Hillsborough was 25 years ago, and they are starting again.

Well, there is that.
And there is a good chance the Review will end up in Court instead of Archive.
One or the other, but quarter of a century to wait for the Review Papers and for Redwood to face ramification over his work can't justify a costly specially commissioned review.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 9:51

Châtelaine wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:@ Ayoyo 9:39
I wonder if the question had been "The dogs indicated death in the apartment", the officer might have replied: "Yes, that's true" ...

The follow-up question then might have been "And on  items belonging to McCanns and nowhere else" and the officer replied .... ?

Go backward to refer to the dialogue.

The dogs and death inside the apt were mentioned in a one-sentence question by the member and met with that reply from the Officer.
***
I should have done that before posting and now just did,  but cannot find it.
Can you give me a pagenumber  please, or remind me of the member, who originally posted it? TA

Andrew77R wrote:
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me -  the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?"

Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"

Asking the member a question with obvious answer is a tad strange.
As if the Office is not aware that this was plastered all over every National Regional and Global newspapers.  
The whole world knows the dogs alerted inside Mccanns Apt without history of death prior to Maddie.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by russiandoll on 06.04.14 9:53

The post is on p.47 of the Whitewash topic. Here is the exchange re the dog alerts :

   Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?"

  The police officer was correct. The dog alerted to the odour of a corpse, the indications being that a lifeless body was in a location long enough for the odour to develop.

That is the extent of the dog work. It is up to detectives and others to identify the body and to find evidence leading to when and how it came to be in that location.

If we take MM out of the equation and allow for another body having been in 5a, it does not mean that another person died there.

The police officer was correct to differentiate between death and dead.

I believe that Maddie's body was in 5a for some time after death, because I accept the dog alerts.

I have no idea where Maddie died.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 10:02

@russiandoll wrote:The post is on p.47 of the Whitewash topic. Here is the exchange re the dog alerts :

   Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?"

  The police officer was correct. The dog alerted to the odour of a corpse, the indications being that a lifeless body was in a location long enough for the odour to develop.

That is the extent of the dog work. It is up to detectives and others to identify the body and to find evidence leading to when and how it came to be in that location.

If we take MM out of the equation and allow for another body having been in 5a, it does not mean that another person died there.

The police officer was correct to differentiate between death and dead.

I believe that Maddie's body was in 5a for some time after death, because I accept the dog alerts.

I have no idea where Maddie died.

Errr...how does that reconcile with Redwood's statement " Maddie did not leave the apt alive"?

The Officer neither confirm nor deny dogs indices or Maddie died n the Apt.

The "not strictly true" does not tell you which bit is not strictly true which bit is, or does he mean the statement in totality is not strictly true and the strict true lies in something else.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by plebgate on 06.04.14 10:12

I have to ask - how do we know that the q & a conversation with the policeman did take place?  It may very well have, but  I do not know for sure.  That's my take on it and I do not propose answering anyone who posts telling me that it definitely did because without evidence I remain cautious.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by russiandoll on 06.04.14 10:13

Aiyoyo, which part are you referring to? Which words from the police officer's replies can you not reconcile with Redwood's " might not have been alive when she left the apartment? "

 Redwood said that Maddie might have been dead when she was moved from the apartment. That can be reconciled with the dog alerts, whether he says so or not.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by Guest on 06.04.14 10:19

@ Ayoyo and Russiandoll
Thanks for finding the original post and for your comments.

That's indeed the point I wanted to make: the question included Madeleine. And there is no conclusive evidence, that it was Madeleine, although as circumstantial evidence it is pretty strong. So I wondered, what the officer might have replied to a question regarding death or dead in Apt. 5A without mentioning Madeleine. That's all ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 10:24

@russiandoll wrote:Aiyoyo, which part are you referring to? Which words from the police officer's replies can you not reconcile with Redwood's " might not have been alive when she left the apartment? " = died in the apartment isn't it ? Or do you think he meant she died elsewhere and they brought her dead body back into the apartment ? Feasible ?
BTW is that direct quote from Redwood?
If it is, he is careful with his words, again not easy to decipher what he meant, as in died in the apt or dead body moved into the apt?


 Redwood said that Maddie might have been dead when she was moved from the apartment. That can be reconciled with the dog alerts, whether he says so or not.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by russiandoll on 06.04.14 10:33

aiyoyo, from what I have read I believe that Maddie probably died in 5a, however the dog alerts do not tell us anything other than there was a body[ presumably Maddie's ] in 5a. I think it unlikely that Maddie died elsewhere and was brought back to the apartment, because imo if that had happened she would not have been placed behind the sofa.

 I simply think that as you say, certain people are being very careful with what they are saying. The police officer was being very firm about the limitations of the dog alerts, that is all I was trying to say.

 The bottom line though, is that if an alive, sleeping Maddie did not leave 5a, unless there is evidence given the timeline and statements, that a stranger could have entered, killed then removed her, there is knowledge on the parents' part that their daughter was not asleep when they went for their meal.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by Guest on 06.04.14 10:44

@russiandoll wrote: [...] there is knowledge on the parents' part that their daughter was not asleep when they went for their meal.
***
Definitely agree with you, after having seen long ago Kate's toe-curling reaction to a very simple question: "Was she asleep when you left her?" ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 11:14

@russiandoll wrote:aiyoyo, from what I have read I believe that Maddie probably died in 5a, however the dog alerts do not tell us anything other than there was a body[ presumably Maddie's ] in 5a. I think it unlikely that Maddie died elsewhere and was brought back to the apartment, because imo if that had happened she would not have been placed behind the sofa.

 I simply think that as you say, certain people are being very careful with what they are saying. The police officer was being very firm about the limitations of the dog alerts, that is all I was trying to say.

 Was he ? being very firm about the dogs or limitations?   Are you sure ?
This had been discussed before, dogs can't name a corpse.  Officer's remark is not about that, CAN'T BE.
Since you believe Maddie likely died in the apartment as in let's assume this belief is shared by Redwood and unnamed Officer too, then by definition dogs alert is 100% fool proof isn't it doesn't matter about the finer point of dogs limitation?  
So which bit is "not strictly true"?  Dogs ? or death in the apartment ?

If Maddie did not die in 5A, who did, if dogs is to be believed - the question is down to that tout simplement.
If the dogs reliability is to be discounted then the death theory can be thrown out doesn't matter where she died.

What the officer meant is very obscure.  What Redw ood meant if the quote is attributable to him is a tad clearer ie a dead Maddie was abducted.


 The bottom line though, is that if an alive, sleeping Maddie did not leave 5a, unless there is evidence given the timeline and statements, that a stranger could have entered, killed then removed her, there is knowledge on the parents' part that their daughter was not asleep when they went for their meal.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by aiyoyo on 06.04.14 12:18

@plebgate wrote:I have to ask - how do we know that the q & a conversation with the policeman did take place?  It may very well have, but  I do not know for sure.  That's my take on it and I do not propose answering anyone who posts telling me that it definitely did because without evidence I remain cautious.

Au contraire I believe it is genuine.




aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by Cristobell on 06.04.14 12:38

A minor point Tony but I don't think McCanns got anywhere near 100,000 signatures for their Petition, in fact I think it was around the 30,000 mark when the Review was granted.  Its my belief that the Petition was meant to go on indefinitely and that it was a ploy to get hits to that all important paypal button.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by lj on 06.04.14 18:18

@tigger wrote:
@lj wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?!  Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites.  However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case. 

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

I remain of the opinion that you cannot tell members from this forum what they can write elsewhere. Sorry No Fate Worse Than De'Ath, I have my nails in but this as friendly as I can be. BTW I did not see anything about planning attacks?

Sorry my english today sucks. I have been speaking 4 languages all day, my head is spinning and I really can't find the right words so let me give you a quote:

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

What I think will happen is that the most PJ can come up with is hiding the body, and maybe neglect. I wonder if the statute of limitations won't come in  play then. But even if they are charged I think CR will do their thing, everyone will stall and stall. I think in the end the McCanns won't go to Portugal on free vacations anymore, the Portuguese are not heart broken about that and nothing will happen. The case goes silent until a body is being discovered.

Just putting my ha'penny worth in.
The above exchange is an excellent example on how to discuss a difference of opinion and conviction rationally and politely.

My opinion in this is that if a member has a high profile, either through generally being well informed or being a frequent  and long-time poster, it is incumbent on them to be careful what is stated as fact when it is only an opinion. Especially elsewhere.
For one thing JH has the distinction of being  under constant scrutiny  for legal reasons.

As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.

So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.

13 years?? I don't know how my computer will take that!  winkwink 

Yes, I too do think that is what is worrying the British side, all of them.

I know it has not been easy for JH, and I want to thank her again for her courage. I do hope that none of us are ever the cause of more trouble that TM already can make.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by HelenMeg on 07.04.14 10:50

I am feeling impatient with lack of news / lack of libel trial progress ... lack of everything.  When SY said the
investigation / review was upping the tempo (or words to that effect)  I should have known not to take any notice.. its coming up to 7th anniversary time now.. maybe the MSM have begged for one last photo opportunity .. for old times sake nah

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by petunia on 07.04.14 22:24

HelenMeg the 7th Anniversary is indeed upon us and we have William,Kate and George touring new zealand, so maybe the royal couple will be as thoughtful has they were when William and Kate got married and they will delay all TV and newspaper interviews. imo if we are to get any news or interviews from the mccanns it will start from the 29th of April because imo the 29th of April is very significant to them.

petunia

Posts : 482
Reputation : 69
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Game over?

Post by ultimaThule on 08.04.14 3:08

@tigger wrote:
@lj wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?!  Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites.  However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case. 

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

I remain of the opinion that you cannot tell members from this forum what they can write elsewhere. Sorry No Fate Worse Than De'Ath, I have my nails in but this as friendly as I can be. BTW I did not see anything about planning attacks?

Sorry my english today sucks. I have been speaking 4 languages all day, my head is spinning and I really can't find the right words so let me give you a quote:

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

What I think will happen is that the most PJ can come up with is hiding the body, and maybe neglect. I wonder if the statute of limitations won't come in  play then. But even if they are charged I think CR will do their thing, everyone will stall and stall. I think in the end the McCanns won't go to Portugal on free vacations anymore, the Portuguese are not heart broken about that and nothing will happen. The case goes silent until a body is being discovered.

Just putting my ha'penny worth in.
The above exchange is an excellent example on how to discuss a difference of opinion and conviction rationally and politely.

My opinion in this is that if a member has a high profile, either through generally being well informed or being a frequent  and long-time poster, it is incumbent on them to be careful what is stated as fact when it is only an opinion. Especially elsewhere.
For one thing JH has the distinction of being  under constant scrutiny  for legal reasons.

As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.

So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.
As far as I'm aware, there is no statute of limitations on murder in Portugal or any other European country, including the UK, tigger.

In a case of this nature, after 7 years with no credible sighting of the child and in the absence of a body which may provide evidence of cause of death, the conclusion has to be murder albeit, at the time of writing, by person or persons unknown as it seems to me  no police force or other agency can come to a conclusion that a body has been hidden without first concluding that foul play caused need for that body to be concealed - ipso facto, as the latin has it.  

I agree Portugal is unlikely to be a holiday, free or otherwise, destination of choice for the McCanns who, of late, appear to have gone to some lengths to avoid setting foot in that country together, lj.   I also agree that it is highly unlikely the Portuguese will regard their absence as being any kind of loss, either to their economy or to their nation state, and I sincerely hope that the good people of Portugal will not suffer any further undue financial or other burden as a result of this couple's unscrupulous behaviour.

I also hope you accept that it was not my intention to dictate what other members write elsewhere and that my only concern as to what those most associated with this site put into the wider public domain is that it reflects the integrity of this forum and its owner.

ultimaThule

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 24 of 25 Previous  1 ... 13 ... 23, 24, 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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