A Question For All To Answer

by whoknowsthetruth Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:05 am

If you killed your daughter, and then got away with it. Would you keep your names in the spotlight and keep focus on it? Would it not be better to let it just fade away and not even mention her again?
Keeping it in the spotlight would surely bring the risk of someone remembering something would it not? So why do it. It doesn't make sense does it?

by bellatrix Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:26 am

No I wouldnt.I would just let it all fade into obscurity.

by ufercoffy Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:34 am

They should have done that when they were released from arguido status but their lies had grown too big and they had to keep it up imo.

And there was all that money to be made, too, and mortgage payments to be paid.

Not mentioning any names, of course, or pretending to understand who your on about.

by WOODWARD Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:38 am

If I had convinced my family I was innocent I would want to at least pretend to be searching,I would be aware of the need to keep repeating my false version of events and try to control the media especially if the truth was leaking out. I would,if I were a complete sociopath,see the opportunity to become rich and famous on the back of my misdeeds having seen others do the same in similar circumstances. I would be desperate to keep the donations coming into my fund by fair means or foul in order to have sufficient funds to pay professionals enough to lie on my behalf and to convince rapaciously greedy libel lawyers I could cover any potential losses.

by Snowy Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:54 am

whoknowsthetruth wrote:If you killed your daughter, and then got away with it. Would you keep your names in the spotlight and keep focus on it? Would it not be better to let it just fade away and not even mention her again?
Keeping it in the spotlight would surely bring the risk of someone remembering something would it not? So why do it. It doesn't make sense does it?

No it doesn't.
It's the biggest flaw in the argument that they are definitely guilty, and usually avoided simply by repeating words like 'sociopath' and 'money'.
I have yet to see a convincing explanation of why those who had 'got away with it' and who have now left a decent interval so that they could quite legitimately say 'we have done all we could, time to move on', refuse to do so. With medical qualifications and relatives abroad they could easily have slipped away into obscurity.

by WOODWARD Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:11 pm

Not with an English version of Amarals book on the shelves and on Amazon they couldnt. Not to mention the documentary being translated and aired by UK national television they couldntslip away anywhereon the planet

by Guest Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:17 pm

WOODWARD wrote:Not with an English version of Amarals book on the shelves and on Amazon they couldnt. Not to mention the documentary being translated and aired by UK national television they couldntslip away anywhereon the planet

I agree, at first I thought the same, why would guilty people keep in the limelight. But you have hit the nail on the head WOODWARD, there is so much pressure from all sides, not only the book of Mr Amaral, but Tony Bennett's Foundation, all the blogs, forums etc. all questioning their version. They can't let it lie, they have to keep their mantra going, especially now, as more and more people, are getting a different version to theirs.

by WOODWARD Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:19 pm

:flower:

by whoknowsthetruth Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:41 pm

WOODWARD wrote:Not with an English version of Amarals book on the shelves and on Amazon they couldnt. Not to mention the documentary being translated and aired by UK national television they couldntslip away anywhereon the planet

The Banned Book you mean.Banned because it was hampering the search into Madeleine's disappearance. The one that got banned for telling lies. The one written by a ex-Inspector guilty of lying and in court over torture claims.
Oh yes everyone will believe that rubbish won't they really.

by justagrannynow 1 Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:01 pm

whoknowsthetruth wrote:If you killed your daughter, and then got away with it. Would you keep your names in the spotlight and keep focus on it? Would it not be better to let it just fade away and not even mention her again?
Keeping it in the spotlight would surely bring the risk of someone remembering something would it not? So why do it. It doesn't make sense does it?

That's what makes human beings so interesting.

They can be so contradictory, doing the opposite of what others think they ought to have done.

by Kololi Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:21 pm

justagrannynow 1 wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:If you killed your daughter, and then got away with it. Would you keep your names in the spotlight and keep focus on it? Would it not be better to let it just fade away and not even mention her again?
Keeping it in the spotlight would surely bring the risk of someone remembering something would it not? So why do it. It doesn't make sense does it?

That's what makes human beings so interesting.

They can be so contradictory, doing the opposite of what others think they ought to have done.

Like going jogging and smilling happily within days of a daughter going missing......

Sorry that was a bit sarcastic maybe but it is astounding how those who have doubt of an abductor are told that their suspicions of the McCann's "odd" behaviour are unfair as people all react differently. Now though, in this thread, we are all supposed to believe that a person fibbing after having murdered their daughter would behave in precisely the way that common sense tells us they should behave. Well said Gran.

Myself? I guess I would I would like to think that I could go for disappearing into the wallpaper and hoping that interest in it faded. If that wasn't possible I would act out a charade and hope that people believed it and that my own conscience allowed me to continue with it for as long as necessary.

I would probably actually do something quite opposite though having a massive conscience and would not need to hope people forgot as I would be more likely to be owning up within moments.

Take care

by justagrannynow 1 Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:35 pm

Well it's the same with all these sightings. How many people are certain they have seen Madeleine yet do no more than make a phone call, sometimes days later when they have had a think about it ? This despite there being a £2.5 miilion reward out for her. Apart from the couple who tried to grab the Croatian footballers son, the others have been decidedly laid back about it all.

And what about the abductor ? The one Dave Edgar says is keeping Madeleine alive in a lawless village 15kms from PDL. Now who would have believed that?

by aiyoyo Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:02 pm

That's exactly what they want people to think...a very cunning and evil tactic if it works well, then they are home free.

Looks like OP and others fall right for it... they've certainly managed to fool some fools!

Fortunately there are still people with able and well functioning thinking vessel.

by Ruby Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:18 pm

Some people will do anything to keep their asses out of jail.

naming no names, mind.

by whoknowsthetruth Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:42 pm

Unfortunatly the people who cannot see the woods for the trees are the ones who believe the rubbish that they are guilty. You just would not carry on, keeping Madeleine in the news. You would let it go quietly and let everyone forget it. That way you just live your life like nothing has happened.

by Guest Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:47 pm

whoknowsthetruth wrote:Unfortunatly the people who cannot see the woods for the trees are the ones who believe the rubbish that they are guilty. You just would not carry on, keeping Madeleine in the news. You would let it go quietly and let everyone forget it. That way you just live your life like nothing has happened.

Big snag, they can't let it go quietly. Too many voices out there challenging their version of events.

by whoknowsthetruth Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:05 pm

No there is not that many voices really. I said before that the numbers are dwindling and honestly if it went from the news nobody would bother really. Unfortunatly thatt is the truth of it all.

by bellatrix Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:12 pm

Thats right and there are only people challenging their version simply because they WONT go away.

by Kololi Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:43 pm

Hi
It does make me wonder how, if they have fooled the world, their consciences allow them to carry on fooling everybody after all this time. A lot of people would have been driven mad by trying to keep such an awful secret which always pushes me to believe that they could not possibly have hurt her and kept this charade up for so long.

I am not convinced that any human would be able to commit such an awful act and keep up the pretence for ever. Even if they had not received the publicity and had slipped away into the night I would have expected one of them at least to confess all at some point to somebody. But that is me judging by how I believe that I might react I suppose.

Take care

by Pascal Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:11 pm

Kololi wrote:
justagrannynow 1 wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:If you killed your daughter, and then got away with it. Would you keep your names in the spotlight and keep focus on it? Would it not be better to let it just fade away and not even mention her again?
Keeping it in the spotlight would surely bring the risk of someone remembering something would it not? So why do it. It doesn't make sense does it?

That's what makes human beings so interesting.

They can be so contradictory, doing the opposite of what others think they ought to have done.

Like going jogging and smilling happily within days of a daughter going missing......

Sorry that was a bit sarcastic maybe but it is astounding how those who have doubt of an abductor are told that their suspicions of the McCann's "odd" behaviour are unfair as people all react differently. Now though, in this thread, we are all supposed to believe that a person fibbing after having murdered their daughter would behave in precisely the way that common sense tells us they should behave. Well said Gran.

Myself? I guess I would I would like to think that I could go for disappearing into the wallpaper and hoping that interest in it faded. If that wasn't possible I would act out a charade and hope that people believed it and that my own conscience allowed me to continue with it for as long as necessary.

I would probably actually do something quite opposite though having a massive conscience and would not need to hope people forgot as I would be more likely to be owning up within moments.

Take care

great post K.

by WOODWARD Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:40 pm

I would challenge anyone to give an example of one lie in Amarals book,they never do do they? They just keep shouting liar liar without identifying a solitary untruth,even Isabelle Duarte,their own lawyer couldnt point to a single untruth, just kept shouting liar ,like a five year old in a strop

by marigold Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:21 pm

WOODWARD wrote:I would challenge anyone to give an example of one lie in Amarals book,they never do do they? They just keep shouting liar liar without identifying a solitary untruth,even Isabelle Duarte,their own lawyer couldnt point to a single untruth, just kept shouting liar ,like a five year old in a strop

Absolutely. There is never a coherent response. What else can they do? They know he speaks and writes the truth. That's why they hate him.

by Otium Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:37 pm

I understood that Amaral's book was banned because it hindered the search for Madeleine not because it contained lies. Although I have not read it, if it does contain lies I would be very interested to hear what they are.

With regards to the OP - On paper it does seem absurd to continue to be forcibly in the public eye if you have something to hide but taking the McCann's whole demeanour into account, I just simply say: If you tell one lie you more often than not have to tell more and more to cover up the first one.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

by marigold Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:31 pm

Otium wrote:I understood that Amaral's book was banned because it hindered the search for Madeleine not because it contained lies. Although I have not read it, if it does contain lies I would be very interested to hear what they are.

With regards to the OP - On paper it does seem absurd to continue to be forcibly in the public eye if you have something to hide but taking the McCann's whole demeanour into account, I just simply say: If you tell one lie you more often than not have to tell more and more to cover up the first one.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

Otium, I love the last quote - how very true.They said it hindered the search and hurt their feelings! There are no lies contained in the book, it's all based on the files.