100 REASONS WHY THE PARENTS BELONG IN JAIL/SHOULD BE UNDER INVESTIGATION

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 within 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
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
29. Do sniffer dogs lie? NO
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 someone try to 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  (Amended UNCLEAR)
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? YES  (Amended UNCLEAR)
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? NO (Amended UNCLEAR)
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? NO  Amended (UNCLEAR)
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? NO  (Amended UNCLEAR)
72. Have the parents made millions from Maddie being missing? YES
73. Did Kate write a book that the twins might read mention torn genitalia ? 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

bobbin wrote:Really good to have all of that in one quick reference place.  

MF77 wrote:Could I ask about Q. 68 - Is there more information on this, as to when, how and who? 

It seems a very significant fact to highlight.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

MF77 wrote:Could I ask about Q. 68 - Is there more information on this, as to when, how and who? 

It seems a very significant fact to highlight.

I've wondered what part Philip Edmonds has to play. If he has spoken to SY, has (as claimed) photos of his boys playing with Madeleine and basically said that it all went down as per the "official" version of events, is he considered a sufficiently credible witness to rule out any other possibility than a stranger abduction?

Something else I've always wondered is, was the pool properly dredged during the initial searches? It seems an obvious place to search but there is surprisingly little mention of it.

nobodythereeither wrote:What evidence is there for the answers given to questions 67 to 71?

Does the person who originally wrote these Q and As have some inside information?

If not, unfortunately, I think that including them just detracts from the power of the other Q and As, and that they would have been better off omitted from the (otherwise excellent) list.

candyfloss wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:What evidence is there for the answers given to questions 67 to 71?

Does the person who originally wrote these Q and As have some inside information?

If not, unfortunately, I think that including them just detracts from the power of the other Q and As, and that they would have been better off omitted from the (otherwise excellent) list.

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

I agree above are just speculation and opinion not fact.

Did both parents lie about the state of the shutters - YES
Die Kate lie about the state of the curtains - YES
Did Gerry lie about his point of entry to the apartment - YES
Did Gerry deliberately destroy any possible forensic evidence at the supposed point of entry - YES
Did both parents realise that the twins had been sedated - YES
Did either parent do anything about this - NO
Did Gerry go to sleep whilst everyone else was out searching - YES
Die Kate sit "Keeping Vigil" because it was dark outside, whilst everyone else was outside searching - YES
Did Gerry take Kate jogging the following morning - YES
Did he reveal to Kate that Tanner had seen a man carrying a child - NO
Did they jog / search in the direction indicated by Tanner - NO
Did Kate wash items which might have carried some forensic traces - YES
Did they hand over all the cameras and photos to the PJ - NO
Did they keep some of the better photos back for release to the press - YES

MF77 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:What evidence is there for the answers given to questions 67 to 71?
Does the person who originally wrote these Q and As have some inside information?
If not, unfortunately, I think that including them just detracts from the power of the other Q and As, and that they would have been better off omitted from the (otherwise excellent) list.

67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? UNCLEAR
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? UNCLEAR
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? UNCLEAR
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? UNCLEAR
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? UNCLEAR

I agree above are just speculation and opinion not fact.

Thanks for clearing that up, I wouldn't want to have quoted any of it erroneously.
Shouldn't they really be removed, if they're not factual? It only damages our case.

PeterMac wrote:

MF77 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:What evidence is there for the answers given to questions 67 to 71?
Does the person who originally wrote these Q and As have some inside information?
If not, unfortunately, I think that including them just detracts from the power of the other Q and As, and that they would have been better off omitted from the (otherwise excellent) list.

67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? UNCLEAR
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? UNCLEAR
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? UNCLEAR
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? UNCLEAR
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? UNCLEAR

I agree above are just speculation and opinion not fact.

Thanks for clearing that up, I wouldn't want to have quoted any of it erroneously.
Shouldn't they really be removed, if they're not factual? It only damages our case.

Perhaps amend the answers

MF77 wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

MF77 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:What evidence is there for the answers given to questions 67 to 71?
Does the person who originally wrote these Q and As have some inside information?
If not, unfortunately, I think that including them just detracts from the power of the other Q and As, and that they would have been better off omitted from the (otherwise excellent) list.

67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? UNCLEAR
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? UNCLEAR
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? UNCLEAR
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? UNCLEAR
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? UNCLEAR

I agree above are just speculation and opinion not fact.

Thanks for clearing that up, I wouldn't want to have quoted any of it erroneously.
Shouldn't they really be removed, if they're not factual? It only damages our case.

Perhaps amend the answers

I'd agree that the answers can be amended, but that would heavily impact their usefulness, in a list which would otherwise be extremely powerful; as nobodythereeither said. I'd have the opinion that strong answers to such questions is the way to go.

aquila wrote:I'd like to add questions 101 and 102 on the board.

Is Kate McCann an ambassador for Missing People? YES

Question 102

Why?

aquila wrote:I'd like to add questions 101 and 102 on the board.

Is Kate McCann an ambassador for Missing People? YES

Question 102

Why?

PeterMac wrote:Some of the "strong" answers then may shift the onus of proof to the person seeking to deny the given answer.
Others not.

worriedmum wrote:

aquila wrote:I'd like to add questions 101 and 102 on the board.
Is Kate McCann an ambassador for Missing People? YES
Question 102
Why?

 

PeterMac wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

aquila wrote:I'd like to add questions 101 and 102 on the board.
Is Kate McCann an ambassador for Missing People? YES
Question 102
Why?

 

I think the answer to that one is clear.

She is ambassador for "MISSING PEOPLE"
Not for "Finding missing people"  or "Searching for Missing people", or "Tracing Missing People"
No, the Charity is called "MIssing People."

And she and Gerry must be the world experts on making a person go missing.
They tried so hard, and for the first five nights it didn't work.  Then, they got the technique right, and
> > > > >    Voila, Ladies and Gentlemen .  Behold > > >  A Missing Person.   {Well actually not 'behold', but you get the idea!}

Who better therefore than to be Ambassador.  To show the world how to do it properly

Woofer wrote:"No. 9 Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie YES"

Don`t think that`s right.

aquila wrote:

Woofer wrote:"No. 9 Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie YES"

Don`t think that`s right.

It's not right given the released files.

Constablekid wrote:Another question - Did Kate and Gerry delete mobile phone data before the police arrived?

Woofer wrote:

aquila wrote:

Woofer wrote:"No. 9 Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie YES"
Don`t think that`s right.

It's not right given the released files.

Is it right according to the `bewk`? I`ve never read it - to even touch it I`d feel dirty.