Do you agree with what Tony Bennett says about the McCanns?

by **Jill Havern** 01.02.13 10:56

These are the 3 undertakings that Tony wants to be released from at his court appearance next week:

* reasonable to suspect Madeleine died in her parents' apartment

* reasonable to suspect parents of lying about it

* reasonable to suspect parents of hiding the body and covering it up.

Do you believe, like Tony, that Madeleine McCann may have died in her parents’ apartment and that the McCanns should be suspected of lying about this and covering it up?

by Bob Southgate 01.02.13 11:18

It is reasonable to suspect these are possibilities, which is totally different to saying they actualy happened.

by monkey mind 01.02.13 12:17

If you accept the first one of those three as a possibility then the other two must be admitted automatically.

by monkey mind 01.02.13 12:23

it's difficult to see how you can have a "don't know" on the above poll. The question isn't asking one to consider as a definite fact, rather asking one to entertain the idea whether or not it is a possibility.... is it possible or not?

by sallypelt 01.02.13 12:33

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:These are the 3 undertakings that Tony wants to be released from at his court appearance next week:

* reasonable to suspect Madeleine died in her parents' apartment

* reasonable to suspect parents of lying about it

* reasonable to suspect parents of hiding the body and covering it up.

Do you believe, like Tony, that Madeleine McCann may have died in her parents’ apartment and that the McCanns should be suspected of lying about this and covering it up?

Based on the OFFICIAL evidence that's in the public domain, and gathered by both the Portuguese and the British police, then IMO they are guilty of all three charges. Moreover, no parent would have so many inconsistencies about what happened on the 3 May 2007. If I was the parent of a missing child who had "disappeared" under such circumstances, every detail would be engraved in my mind, never to be errased. Furthermore, I would go to the end of the Universe to do reconstructions, uncontrolled interviews etc, without fear.

So, to sum up, the McCann's have done NOTHING to make decent, honest people, who are looking for the truth, believe that they are innocent.

by Olive_Boyle 01.02.13 14:22

I voted before reading the thread. You can takemy "no" vote off. I thought the poll was the question of the thread title.

Its some of Tony's theories and methods that I don't agree with. I believe she died as a result of an accident in the apartment on 3 May and her parents covered it up.

But saying that I wish him luck for next week.

by Woofer 01.02.13 14:29

Yes, of course its reasonable to suspect that Madeleine died in the apartment. It`s also reasonable to suspect there has been a cover-up and that the parent`s have lied. Beyond that I don`t know.

by JAGONAUT 01.02.13 14:49

From day one the Mccann's should have been charged with willful neglect of their children, instead they are taking the moral high ground and making a career out of litigation.
Nothing they have done since Madeleine's disappearance has (in my opinion) been that of normal parents suffering the pain of missing their child and doing all they can to assist the authorities, quite the opposite !
So of course it's reasonable to suspect or counter comment against any of the published details, and the behaviour of the Mccann's has invited this.
I wish Tony Bennett good luck for next week and hope justice is served.

by Guest 01.02.13 14:52

Do you agree with what Tony Bennett says about the McCanns? 4239481642

JAGONAUT, thanks for joining us

by russiandoll 01.02.13 15:44

I have added a yes to this poll based on the following

1. reading the released police files.
2. reading Kate McCann's book " madeleine".
3. reading Goncalo Amaral's book, " The Truth of the Lie"

3. watching interviews given by the couple , separately and together
4. reading about the way the fund is managed.

Imo it is reasonable and logical, based on the above, to doubt that the couple have been truthful in their account of events on the holiday they took with their family and friends in May 2007.
There would have been no need for dishonesty had the events of that holiday been as they claim. So it is possible imo that the child died and that her death has been covered up for reasons known only to the couple and their holiday companions.
Bottom line.......I do not believe the accounts given by the group to the police.

by plebgate 01.02.13 16:14

Woofer wrote:Yes, of course its reasonable to suspect that Madeleine died in the apartment. It`s also reasonable to suspect there has been a cover-up and that the parent`s have lied. Beyond that I don`t know.

Very reasonable imo.

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 17:04

The Police had said so.
Others can say it.
Why not TB?

by Guest 01.02.13 17:36

I wonder if it would have made any difference if he had been built like a sumo wrestler, habitually used language that would make a trooper blush and had told C-R exactly where to go when this nonsense first started?

Sometimes it takes a bully to deal with another one but Tony clearly doesn't come into that category and, being brave enough to publish his name and address, he is the one being singled out.

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 18:55

Of course it is reasonable. Why would it be unreasonable to have an informed opinion of suspicion? Built from reading the files, watching a plethora of documentaries and interviews, etc, as mentioned before, perhaps having law enforcement experience oneself (no, not me).Since when was thinking and having suspicions and views a crime? Even the PT police and the Prosecutor have not stated as a fact it was an abduction, unless I missed something. Even the Brit police IIRC have said there is nothing in the files which exonerates either one or both. It also doesn't mean any suspicions are correct in fact but people have the right to hold opinions. This IS a cold case after all.

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 21:42

The lawyers say it is unreasonable to suspect the parents as there are no credible grounds for it. Could they explain the credible grounds for believing in a stranger abduction? And how they are more credible than not believing in one? And how are the lawyers in any position whatsoever to assert that an abduction took place and that includes clarence mitchell and a host of journalists and other commentators when the actual authorities investigating it couldn't do as much? That includes ALL authorities. From where I am sitting, someone correct me if I am wrong, they are blatantly telling people what to think and impeding freedom of speech. Now, I trust the earnest and learned judge can see this.

by sonic72 01.02.13 22:07

I'm still waiting for them to take the lie detector test. Kate & Gerry if you are reading, I will pay for the test, and if you miraculously pass the test I will donate £1000 to the madeline fund. Cant be fairer than that.

If you are innocent kate & gerry, then you will not hesitate to prove your 'innocence' and surely you would not turn down £1000 to help you 'find' your daughter?

I suspect they will not take this offer because the dogs already have them bang to rights.

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 22:15

sonic72 wrote:I'm still waiting for them to take the lie detector test. Kate & Gerry if you are reading, I will pay for the test, and if you miraculously pass the test I will donate £1000 to the madeline fund. Cant be fairer than that.

If you are innocent kate & gerry, then you will not hesitate to prove your 'innocence' and surely you would not turn down £1000 to help you 'find' your daughter?

I suspect they will not take this offer because the dogs already have them bang to rights.

i dont know how scientific this is but interesting, even taking out the stress parts leaves inaccuracies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLJ_SKvzUD4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Also this one from 4 minutes 25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6Md3TgGCE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

by plebgate 01.02.13 22:23

I am still waiting for the 48 questions to be answered.
Wonder if their highly paid 32 grand lawyer might answer them on her behalf. Errrrr that's a no then I am guessing.

by sallypelt 01.02.13 22:42

I've never been a twitter tweeter, but I've made a determined effort to read some of the posts there, and WOW, the tide HAS truely turned. This isn't going to go away, and it's all down to the courage of Tony and Amaral. And to think they couldn't take on both at the same time, despite the big guns they have to fight their corner. My question is, where the hell are they getting the money? Didn't they say that the fund wasn't for legal costs, or am I going senile?

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 23:47

sallypelt wrote:I've never been a twitter tweeter, but I've made a determined effort to read some of the posts there, and WOW, the tide HAS truely turned. This isn't going to go away, and it's all down to the courage of Tony and Amaral. And to think they couldn't take on both at the same time, despite the big guns they have to fight their corner. My question is, where the hell are they getting the money? Didn't they say that the fund wasn't for legal costs, or am I going senile?

The fund is not transparent so no one knows what theyspend millions on

They did say fund monies were spent on portuguese libel case in2009-2010 but after that went quiet
never a word that they were paying carter ruck for uk court cases

by hippywippywoo 02.02.13 0:04

sallypelt wrote:I've never been a twitter tweeter, but I've made a determined effort to read some of the posts there, and WOW, the tide HAS truely turned. This isn't going to go away, and it's all down to the courage of Tony and Amaral. And to think they couldn't take on both at the same time, despite the big guns they have to fight their corner. My question is, where the hell are they getting the money? Didn't they say that the fund wasn't for legal costs, or am I going senile?

I thought it had been reported that it is being covered by before the event insurance.

by Guest 02.02.13 8:34

sallypelt wrote:My question is, where the hell are they getting the money? Didn't they say that the fund wasn't for legal costs, or am I going senile?

Maybe it's mutlimillionaire, Director of the Maddie Fund, Facebook friend of Greg the Groomer, Edward 'I've got an apartment in PDL that most likely has a freezer' Smethurst?

$i don\'t know$

by tiny 02.02.13 8:42

admin wrote:
sallypelt wrote:My question is, where the hell are they getting the money? Didn't they say that the fund wasn't for legal costs, or am I going senile?

Maybe it's mutlimillionaire, Director of the Maddie Fund, Facebook friend of Greg the Groomer, Edward 'I've got an apartment in PDL that most likely has a freezer' Smethurst?

Do you agree with what Tony Bennett says about the McCanns? 110921

by Inspectorfrost 02.02.13 19:35

It is also ~~insane~~ unreasonable to suggest that people cannot reply to, investigate, form their own opinions, think, express them, blahblah, on a COLD case where the official police forces have never stated this was an abduction, in the front of hundreds or thousands of mainstream media articles in the UK when those very articles are in the main one sided and which contradict or ridicule the information in the police files, which fabricate facts about the investigation, and which articles frequently libel all manner of people, where spin doctors have been paid thousands to spin, where the parents have launched a most massive campaign, given hundreds of interviews etc, Kate Mcanns book is in the same bracket here

Right to reply it is IMO and ed the expunger has spectacularly failed in his mission to expunge the idea that the family or friends could ever possibly be involved.

Just who do some of these people think they are to dictate to others what to think. history has taught us its a no go!