The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

INNOCENCE

View previous topic View next topic Go down

INNOCENCE

Post by Hummingbird on 31.05.12 12:37

What are your thoughts on this?

a) GM is innocent

b) KM is innocent

c) they are both innocent

Not suggesting we discuss whether there was actually an abduction or not just wondering if someone else assisted a or b (as above) and the other half is truly innocent OR that someone else on the holiday is involved in a cover up and G & K are both unaware?

looked and can't see a thread before - if there is and it has already been done till its boring then ignore this please!!


Hummingbird

Posts : 248
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by PeterMac on 31.05.12 12:56

Until proved guilty.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by Guest on 31.05.12 13:42

Assistant Chief Constable for Leicestershire police: “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by anil39200 on 31.05.12 13:44

Hummingbird, I am becoming more of the opinion that one person is responsible entirely for what happened. That's the simple answer. After the event, a select few were brought in to start a protection strategy. Then favours were called, contacts used, press notified and public made aware of a different story, which has now run for five years. I personally believe the person involved to be quite deluded, highly strung, selfish and obsessive. A dangerous person capable of changing their face at will, blowing up quickly, into a possibly violent temper, with almost unreal personal standards of what is right or wrong, what is good or bad. O believe this person has done something bad, but, possibly regrets it, though is now unable to disembark the train of being populated again. I believe the person to have been brought up in a fairly affluent area, quite strict education, shone in that education and was possibly indulged for much of childhood. The person does not accept .failure or the imperfect and my opinion is that imperfection of one sort or another led to what happened. Perhaps seeing rebellious behaviour in another did not go down well with the former, indulged person who had been so perfect themselves. The actual problem had been partly resolved to a sort of perfection a year and a half earlier. When the family was completed but that still left an imperfection to be dealt with. Finally, possibly after too many questions, one person snapped. The rest is history. The person has reclaimed the centre stage of attention and the indulgent tendecies of others. Sadly this is not really about a small 3 year old child, now frozen in time.

My opinion is based on what I have read,learned from others, seen, watched and listened to.

anil39200

Posts : 388
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by Ribisl on 31.05.12 19:19

Regardless of who may have been directly or indirectly responsible for Madeleine's demise, one can hardly describe either of them as 'innocent' judging by their subsequent behaviour. They are fraudulent opportunists at best.

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by tigger on 31.05.12 19:27

@Ribisl wrote:Regardless of who may have been directly or indirectly responsible for Madeleine's demise, one can hardly describe either of them as 'innocent' judging by their subsequent behaviour. They are fraudulent opportunists at best.

Imo it isn't Gerry. The ideas may have come from him, but I don't think 'he done it'. Interestingly, he was going to 'stand by Kate' when they were made arguidos. Kate chose to brazen it out, Gerry was thinking of driving over the Spanish border - totally different agendas. Kate is the tougher one of the two.
When Gerry told his family it was a 'disaster'. I think he meant the faked abduction where none of the timelines worked, meeting the wrong people and finally having to call the police - relinquishing control. As soon as Gerry is in control, he's fine. Thinking on his feet, not so good.

Gerry also said that he had played 'no part in the disappearance of Madeleine', which Dr.Roberts translated as 'no active part'. I tend to agree.
I also think that neither parent was there 'that minute when she was taken' - their brains can cope with that phrase very easily if a third party took care of the removal of the body.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by Snifferdog on 31.05.12 20:19

Is it possible that this someone would remove the body and thereby risk all in becoming an accomplice to the crime?
avatar
Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by tigger on 31.05.12 20:47

@Snifferdog wrote:Is it possible that this someone would remove the body and thereby risk all in becoming an accomplice to the crime?

Yes. The risk wasn't great and likely outweighed by the incentive.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by Snifferdog on 31.05.12 22:43

@tigger wrote:
@Snifferdog wrote:Is it possible that this someone would remove the body and thereby risk all in becoming an accomplice to the crime?

Yes. The risk wasn't great and likely outweighed by the incentive.
but then only if they were involved in the first place surely? That is if one looks at the scenario of neither k or g disposing of the body themselves.
avatar
Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by friedtomatoes on 31.05.12 22:46

Ive often felt they were being blackmailed by someone who knew the truth

btw
its presumed innocent not innocent before being found guilty, and no legal body has stated they are to date, innocent that is or not guilty

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by aquila on 01.06.12 0:31

@Ribisl wrote:Regardless of who may have been directly or indirectly responsible for Madeleine's demise, one can hardly describe either of them as 'innocent' judging by their subsequent behaviour. They are fraudulent opportunists at best.

The best thing they could do is get rid of the fund. It appears to be no longer needed. The UK police are investigating/reviewing, it's not a charity, the accounts are not imo transparent, it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run a website, the media are ready to print all things Madeleine and there is an army of support for them in finding justice for Madeleine (including this forum). It always comes back to the fund for me and that's a fund set up to find Madeleine and is being used for legal people, libel suits, PR folk, private investigators(!) et al.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8704
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by tigger on 01.06.12 6:17

@aquila wrote:
@Ribisl wrote:Regardless of who may have been directly or indirectly responsible for Madeleine's demise, one can hardly describe either of them as 'innocent' judging by their subsequent behaviour. They are fraudulent opportunists at best.

The best thing they could do is get rid of the fund. It appears to be no longer needed. The UK police are investigating/reviewing, it's not a charity, the accounts are not imo transparent, it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run a website, the media are ready to print all things Madeleine and there is an army of support for them in finding justice for Madeleine (including this forum). It always comes back to the fund for me and that's a fund set up to find Madeleine and is being used for legal people, libel suits, PR folk, private investigators(!) et al.

But be fair, that wasn't part of the original plan. The Fund was to sustain the 'family' whilst they got on with the real purpose of the exercise - becoming ambassadors for Amber Alert, paid for public speaking, possibly even a political career for Gerry, Kate heading charities.

The Fund was never meant to be the only thing they had to rely on. It wasn't meant to pay lawyers and overpriced investigators. That's all the fault of the PJ and us! 120.000 at present to take TB to court. Lots of money in Portugal to ruin Amaral and stop him talking. There are just too many holes to stop.
Besides, I don't think the investigators ever got as much money as was stated.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: INNOCENCE

Post by aquila on 01.06.12 8:50

@tigger wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Ribisl wrote:Regardless of who may have been directly or indirectly responsible for Madeleine's demise, one can hardly describe either of them as 'innocent' judging by their subsequent behaviour. They are fraudulent opportunists at best.

The best thing they could do is get rid of the fund. It appears to be no longer needed. The UK police are investigating/reviewing, it's not a charity, the accounts are not imo transparent, it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run a website, the media are ready to print all things Madeleine and there is an army of support for them in finding justice for Madeleine (including this forum). It always comes back to the fund for me and that's a fund set up to find Madeleine and is being used for legal people, libel suits, PR folk, private investigators(!) et al.

But be fair, that wasn't part of the original plan. The Fund was to sustain the 'family' whilst they got on with the real purpose of the exercise - becoming ambassadors for Amber Alert, paid for public speaking, possibly even a political career for Gerry, Kate heading charities.

The Fund was never meant to be the only thing they had to rely on. It wasn't meant to pay lawyers and overpriced investigators. That's all the fault of the PJ and us! 120.000 at present to take TB to court. Lots of money in Portugal to ruin Amaral and stop him talking. There are just too many holes to stop.
Besides, I don't think the investigators ever got as much money as was stated.


One innocent little girl called Madeleine disappeared through the neglectful actions of her parents by leaving her and her siblings alone in an apartment. It would not have happened if they had been present. Nevertheless it strikes the hearts of good people who chip in to help with immediate financial support for the family. These donations could have been simply sent to a high street bank but instead a fund was established within a very short space of time and a very expensive website established. That same fund hasn't afforded a postage stamp to re-open the case. The fund has been injected with hundreds of thousands of pounds and in the five years Madeleine has been missing hasn't managed to achieve much other than to financially improve the lives of a lot of people and destroy the lives of others imo. Madeleine is still missing. The Mc's aren't happy with the Portuguese investigation and the taxpayers of UK bear the cost of an SY review. It's time to close the fund imo. If only 13% of it is actively being spent on the search for Madeleine (so it has been posted re analysis of the accounts) the other 87% is a complete waste imo.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8704
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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