100 Reasons why the parents belong in jail

by Guest 13.01.14 9:52

Mirage wrote:I saw this riled-up response on the Mirror facebook page. It sums up the strength of feeling out there. As follows:-:

100 REASONS WHY THE PARENTS BELONG IN JAIL
1. Did they use the babysitting service provided? NO
2. Did they use any listening devices? NO
3. Did they leave three children under 4 alone while going out drinking? YES
4. Did they do this every night? YES
5. Did they,under British law,endanger Maddie? YES
6. In the UK is significant harm a form of child abuse? YES
7. Is significant harm used by the UK courts in child abuse cases? YES
8. Does leaving the children as they did qualify under these rules ? YES
9. Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie? YES
10. Are the frequent checks by the Tapas group challenged by other witnesses? YES
11. Was the bedroom withing sight of where they sat? NO
12, Were they within earshot? NO
13. Did anyone other than Tanner see any abductor? NO
14. Has anyone come up with a credible abductor? NO
15. Is there any evidence of an abduction? NO
16. Were the shutters in the room tampered with? NO
17. Did Kate say the shutters were tampered with? YES
18. Did Kate change her story to saying the door was unlocked? YES
19. Was the door unlocked on any other night? NO
20. Is there any physical evidence at all of a break in?NO
21. Is there any physical evidence of another party being in the room? NO
22 (missing)
23. Were the McCann's told not to inform the media? YES
24. Were they told it might harm the chances of finding Maddie alive? YES
25. Were the media informed by a McCann family member? YES
26. Were specially trained British dogs brought in to search the apartment ? YES
27. Did they find anything? YES 28. Have these dogs been successful in over 200 cases? YES
28. Have these dogs been successful in over 200 cases? YES
29. Do sniffer dogs lie?
30. Do the specially trained dogs get confused by other smells? NO
31. Did they find cadaver(dead body) scent in the apartment? YES
32. Did they find blood? YES
33. Did they find cadaver scent behind the sofa? YES
34. On the child's toy? YES
35. In a cupboard in the room? YES
36. Did they find cadaver scent on Kate's clothes? YES
37. Did Kate explain this by saying she had examined dead bodies before holiday? YES
38. Is there any record of her doing so? NO
39. Has anyone come forward to say they saw her doing so? NO
40. Was the hire car rented after Maddie disappeared ? YES
41. Were tests done on DNA found in the car? YES
42. Did the dogs alert to the hire car? YES
43. Is a billion to one odds that it may be someone else's DNA? YES
44. Were the doors and boot left open to get rid of the smell in the car? YES
45. Did the parents explain it away as rotting meat? YES
46. Smelling due to taking rubbish to the tip in the hire car? YES
47. Smelling due to dirty nappies in the hire car? YES
48. Smell due to sea bass in the hire car? YES
49. Did the parents say the dogs were wrong? YES
50. Do you need tons of excuses if the dogs are just plain wrong? NO
51. Have the dogs ever been wrong? NO
52. Did Kate & Gerry flee Portugal? YES
53. Did they hire extradition lawyers? YES
54. Did the McCann's hire libel lawyers to gag anyone with a different view? YES
55. Did the government lend spin doctor Clarence Mitchell to the parents? YES
56. Dio spin doctors twist the truth for a favourable outcome? YES
57. Are they paid to do this? YES
58. Did the McCann's set up a fund in order to search for Maddie? YES
59. Did they use the money donated for anything other than searching? YES
60. Do the parents have a media monitoring unit? YES
61. Are there internet trolls helping the parents to quash getting at the truth? YES
62. Have the Portuguese police been portrayed as incompetent? YES
63. Did they look at all aspects of the case? YES
64. Did they conclude any abduction took place? NO
65. Did they conclude that Maddie was dead and the parents responsible? YES
66. Are there two British investigations into Maddie being missing? YES
67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? NO
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? YES
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? NO
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? NO
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? NO
72. Have the parents made millions from Maddie being missing? YES
73. Did Kate write a book mentioning torn genitalia that the twins might read? YES
74. Did Gerry have his wallet stolen at Waterloo station as he claimed? NO
75. Does the CCTV footage from that day bear out his claims? NO
76. Did the Portuguese police ask British government for medical records? YES
77. Were they handed over? NO
78. Did they ask for bank statements? YES
79. Were they handed over ? NO
80. Did they ask for mobile phone records? YES
81. Were they handed over? NO
82. Have the media printed the McCann version of events? YES
83. Are the media intimidated by threats of libel? YES
84. Have the parents admitted they are responsible for Maddie's disappearance? NO
85. Have the parents faced any criminal charges to date? NO
86. No charges for manslaughter? NO
87. For neglect? NO
88. Did the McCann's say they would take a polygraph(lie detector test) ? YES
89. Did the McCann "people" contact Don Cargill head of polygraph studies?YES
90. Did the McCann's tell the world they would take one to prove innocence? YES
91. Have they taken one in the 2'000+ days since saying they would? NO
92. Did the parents impose a list of conditions for taking one? YES
93. Did Don Cargill say the list was "impossible to satisfy"? YES
94. Did Don Cargill state "They had no intention of taking one"? YES
95. Did Clarence Mitchell say they were innocent and did not need to do one? YES
96. IS Amaral on trial because he wrote a book stating the facts of the case? YES
97. Is it a proper account of the police investigation ? YES
98. Have the McCann's fought desperately to have this book banned? YES
99. Is it banned? NO
100. Is maddie missing because of the actions of the parents? YES

There's actually many sites on the internet where this list can be found

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=100+REASONS+WHY+THE+PARENTS+BELONG+IN+JAIL+1.+Did+they+use+the+babysitting+service+provided%3F+NO

by diatribe 02.02.14 16:06

Perhaps someone can clarify the following points for me. Firstly, whilst fully appreciating that the dogs scenting dead body aroma in the McCann's apt. was merely an indication and never on its own enough to secure a conviction(It may not even have been enough in the UK, where unless one is some sort of celebrity, one is guilty by virtue of the fact that one is merely standing in the dock), surely this detection should have been enough to kill the McCann's benevolent foundation stone dead. After all, the sole raison d'etre for the setting up of the fund was to find Madeleine alive, not to assist with the McCann's legal expenditures. If the dog's disclosures more or less certainly ended the possibility of her still being alive, what possible reasons could potential donors have for further contributing to the fund.

Secondly, although the DNA evidence relating to Madeleine found in the Renault McCann was not acceptable as evidential value in a criminal trial, it was however stated by the FBI to be highly unlikely to belong to anyone else, although I stand to be corrected on this point. If this is the case, why have the Met. Police discounted the McCanns from their investigation and perhaps more poignantly, why are they concentrating their efforts on anyone other than the McCanns. The only logical explanation for their mode of enquiries is if they are of the belief that the DNA evidence found in the hire car was planted by the Portugese police, in which case why are they co-ordinating with them in their current enquiry. Whichever way one views this conundrum, it just doesn't configure.

I'm sure these matters have been previously debated and satisfactory explanations supplied, but I am relatively new to this forum and can't be bothered to trawl through voluminous threads to find the relevant postings.

by truthfultiger 02.02.14 20:55

Hi diatribe and welcome to the forum. You're right, the evidence of the dogs should have stopped the fund in its tracks. I guess I put it down to the extremely good PR people they had on side who we're able to spin the Mccanns out of the sticky situation they found themselves in. They also employed very savvy lawyers who could impose injunctions on the main stream media. This put a stop to a lot of the negative publicity they were facing. With regards to the police investigation... I an of the opinion that the police are in fact investigating the McCanns, but sensibly they are not telling there prime suspects that they are on to them. It appears that the police are investigating ridiculous avenues because the McCann's PR guru its leading articles to the press. If you read the articles, none of the suspects have been confirmed as such by police sources only by sources close to the family. Another theory goes that there is massive cover up going on to exonorate the McCanns. There are a number of reasons there may be a cover up but I haven't found one that I can find credible yet. That doesn't mean there isn't one though, I've been wrong before!

by worriedmum 03.02.14 9:04

Diatribe quote

''the DNA evidence relating to Madeleine found in the Renault McCann was not acceptable as evidential value in a criminal trial, it was however stated by the FBI to be highly unlikely to belong to anyone else, although I stand to be corrected on this point. If this is the case, why have the Met. Police discounted the McCanns from their investigation and perhaps more poignantly, why are they concentrating their efforts on anyone other than the McCanns. The only logical explanation for their mode of enquiries is if they are of the belief that the DNA evidence found in the hire car was planted by the Portugese police, in which case why are they co-ordinating with them in their current enquiry. Whichever way one views this conundrum, it just doesn't configure.''

clapping1

by diatribe 03.02.14 13:53

truthfultiger wrote: If you read the articles, none of the suspects have been confirmed as such by police sources only by sources close to the family. Another theory goes that there is massive cover up going on to exonorate the McCanns. There are a number of reasons there may be a cover up but I haven't found one that I can find credible yet. That doesn't mean there isn't one though, I've been wrong before!

I fully understand that these ridiculous stories are not emanating from official police sources, but if the object of the exercise was to mislead the McCanns into a false sense of security, why spend circa £750,000 on a Crime Watch edition implicating all types of spurious characters and even justifying Tanner's implausible sighting by conjuring up another figment of the imagination . As previously stated, although the current meeja garbage may not be directly leaked by the police, the trend was set by the aforementioned in the Crime Watch programme.

To me, the most poignant part of that programme was when our intrepid Inspector Clouseau stressed, 'There was a window of opportunity for an abduction,' thereby creating an out for the McCanns. That's the sort of strategy an apologist or a defence lawyer would make on behalf of their client in order to cast doubt, ie. an abduction although highly unlikely in the circumstances, wasn't a physical impossibility. In stating this, he was setting the grounds for if not a cover up, an excuse for not being able to successfully conclude the case and wasting £millions of taxpayer's money.

If the current Met. Police investigation was intended to be anything other than a going through the motions exercise, instead of wasting time and resources in chasing Sydney Cooke lookalikes with copies of the Weekly Pervert protruding from their Y fronts, they'd be investing hard stolen taxpayer's money in a fleet of the following:-

100 Reasons why the parents belong in jail JCB

100 Reasons why the parents belong in jail JCB

by truthfultiger 03.02.14 21:33

I didn't know that the Crimewatch edition cost so much. I think that the police were and possibly still are a but stuck for evidence and so by changing the time frame and focusing on the Gerry lookalike e-fits they were maybe trying to appeal to more witnesses who may have seen him. I'm not sure about all the other strange blond men, possibly witnesses or v could just be plants to divert attention from the fact that they are only interested in the Gerry e-fit. Who knows... To me though, the money spent can only indicate that the police want to finish this once and for all, but that they have a lot of work to do to make sure they get a conviction. The case needs to be watertight with lawyers lime those employed by the mccanns. Ass many on here have stated previously, there are much cheaper ways to effect a cover up.

by Yorkshirgel 12.06.17 10:34

1-5 questions depend on whether the story about leaving the children alone is actually true and we only have the word of the parents for that. This might be a cover for something else, in other words they might admit to a lesser charge than one that might put them away for life. They cannot be tried twice.

The BIG question imo is 'Why haven't they been arrested or interviewed separately ie in different rooms in UK, so that if they are telling lies it will show up?'

If it can be proven that they did not leave the children alone as they say they did, then they could be charged with Perverting the Course of Justice which carries a life sentence. If they knew that M was dead then the 'Fund' is a fake and they can be charged with Fraud. Taking money from people under false pretences.

by polyenne 12.06.17 12:23

The longer this charade goes on, the less likely it is that they will be charged with anything at all. They are too well protected.

Even if Goncalo Amaral publishes a 2nd book (which I sincerely hope he does as I believe there is further important information that has been withheld/suppressed), although this might convert more of the public, I still don't believe this to be the hammer to crack the nut.

I'll go further and surmise that even if there is a split in the Tapas 7 and one of them blows the whistle, they alone will not be enough, it will take a few of them to pluck up the courage to come forward with the real truth.....IMO.

It's a real shame because I firmly believe that the immense work done by so many parties, especially members of this forum, would prove that many of the facets/facts that have been identified, debated and corroborated are indeed part of the true story.

by Cmaryholmes 12.06.17 13:06

Yorkshirgel wrote:1-5 questions depend on whether the story about leaving the children alone is actually true and we only have the word of the parents for that. This might be a cover for something else, in other words they might admit to a lesser charge than one that might put them away for life. They cannot be tried twice.

The BIG question imo is 'Why haven't they been arrested or interviewed separately ie in different rooms in UK, so that if they are telling lies it will show up?'

If it can be proven that they did not leave the children alone as they say they did, then they could be charged with Perverting the Course of Justice which carries a life sentence. If they knew that M was dead then the 'Fund' is a fake and they can be charged with Fraud. Taking money from people under false pretences.

Al Capone went down for tax evasion in the end. The fraudulent fund may well be the Mccanns' downfall. IMO

by Yorkshirgel 12.06.17 13:23

I would be worried that the Leicestershire police sent a direct link to the McCanns own website for people who had any further information.

https://twitter.com/abuseofpower/status/874004420383707136/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fjillhavern.forumotion.net%2Ft8955-100-reasons-why-the-parents-belong-in-jail

by Bunnykins 13.06.17 10:30

Yorkshirgel wrote:I would be worried that the Leicestershire police sent a direct link to the McCanns own website for people who had any further information.

https://twitter.com/abuseofpower/status/874004420383707136/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fjillhavern.forumotion.net%2Ft8955-100-reasons-why-the-parents-belong-in-jail

Wow! Really? Shocking... Trying to click link but can't get anything... Can anyone help please

by Verdi 13.06.17 13:17

Bunnykins wrote:Wow! Really? Shocking... Trying to click link but can't get anything... Can anyone help please

This is about as helpful as you can get..

@TonyBennett #1

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1374-leics-police-and-the-mccanns-website-then-and-now

The position of Leicestershire Constabulary was tenuous to say the least. It certainly could be seen as encouraging the public to contact the McCanns direct, circumventing the correct channels for a criminal investigation, although the implication is there it shouldn't however be stated that, I quote.. "the Leicestershire police sent a direct link to the McCanns own website for people who had any further information". That is dangerously misleading.

It's akin to Jenny Murat setting-up a street stall for members of the public, who ran shy of official channels, to pass on information that could be relevant to police inquiries. Or indeed Jim Gamble asking members of the public to send their holiday photographs to the CEOP - but I digress.

It's very important not to stray into the realms of invention just to make an impact. Accuracy, as far as possible, is the key!

by Verdi 13.06.17 13:36

Yorkshirgel wrote: They cannot be tried twice.

Yes they can - if the charge against them is for a different crime.

Even the law of double jeopardy (where you can't be re-tried for the same crime) has been adjusted in more recent times to allow for ambiguity in the justice system.

Besides, the case of Madeleine McCann, which legally should have remained under the jurisdiction of the Portuguese police, has been confounded by unprecedented UK interference.