The Maddy Circus rolls on.

[joe-90]

It does remind me of the Saville case. The McCanns were rather cool about the new investigation when they were told about it. I haven't made up my mind about the case yet. I just want a proper investigation by Scotland Yard. The evidence so far though (DNA, cadaver and blood dogs, changing stories, washing teddy bears, etc) make me rather wonder if there CAN be any other possibilities.

 

[enyam]

What a waste of time and money.

I just want a proper investigation by Scotland Yard.

Come on Joe one or the other.In case you need reminding the 1st quote is from your opening gambit on this thread the other from above.

 

[joe-90]

If the investigation is a proper one looking at all the likely possibilities - then fine.

If it is a whitewash and starts from the premise that the McCanns didn't do it - then that's not an investigation at all. Waste of money.

To be honest, I didn't realise just how much incriminating evidence there is against the McCanns.

 

[Big Tone]

It’s hard to know fact from fiction but the teddy thing, if true, is just plain weird!

As weird as I think it is though, it doesn’t constitute proof of anything. (Except perhaps that they are weird). I am warming to Joe's point of view on them

 

[joe-90]

So your daughter goes missing. The police ask questions to start an investigation - so they refuse to answer the 48 questions? Are they for real?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm

 

[enyam]

There does seem to be alot of inconsistencies in their story,but they have been there from the start.

 

[enyam]

So your daughter goes missing. The police ask questions to start an investigation - so they refuse to answer the 48 questions? Are they for real?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm[/QUOTE]

Your daughter is missing and you choose the right to remain silent!

 

[Bosswhite]

Everyone seem's to be pointing at what they think is undeniable evidence that they did it so why have they not been charged if that was really the case?

They were made formal suspects under Portuguese law, "Arguido`s",

and given the right to remain silent, and the right to legal representation.

This Country has no jurisdiction over another Countries Law Procedure, Scotland Yard can be "Invited" but not take over,
Not sure what this new investigation by Scotland Yard is about really,

 

[joe-90]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Maddies-disappearance-Portuguese-police.html


"Under the plan, Yard detectives will seek the assistance of the Portuguese to carry out some inquiries on their behalf. British police do not have jurisdiction in Portugal but they have the right to investigate and prosecute any British suspects who might be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance."

 

[Sombrero]

Holy Shizm !! you turn up 2 days late and it's all over. The McCanns are guilty and Maddie's dead. That all happened so quick !

I didn't realise that Joe and his cronies had been appointed judge, jury and executioner.

But his evidence is great... it's from the pool of purity, they call the "internet"... so must be right ! eh?

Oh no, silly me, there's a video of Kate pausing at the wrong moment, a dog piped up about something?, and Kate chose not to answer 48 questions - after maybe being told by her brief "not to answer anything that could be twisted by Joe90"..??

Problem is that these days, there's 80% of the evidence instantly out there in the public domain, but if you watch CSI, then you should know that points in the wrong direction...and then we'll double back to what you first thought, but with a twist.... life is odd.

Truth is we live in a society where we're all innocent until proven guilty. So let's first find Maddie (or what happened to her) and then let the courts do their job. And if Kate is guilty, lock her up and throw away the key.

 

[joe-90]

Dogs are unbiased. DNA evidence doesn't lie. If this is a genuine investigation then start at the beginning.

BTW, what type of mother refuses to cooperate with the police to find her missing child? I'd say one with something to hide.

What type of woman doesn't go out and look for her missing child? I'd say one that knows such an act is futile.

What type of person denies DNA evidence? An idiot.

What type of person refuses to accept the work of cadaver and blood dogs?

One that doesn't want to hear the truth.

Start the investigation at the beginning - and see where it leads.

 

[Sombrero]

Dogs are unbiased. DNA evidence doesn't lie. If this is a genuine investigation then start at the beginning.

BTW, what type of mother refuses to cooperate with the police to find her missing child? I'd say one with something to hide.

What type of woman doesn't go out and look for her missing child? I'd say one that knows such an act is futile.

What type of person denies DNA evidence? An idiot.

What type of person refuses to accept the work of cadaver and blood dogs?

One that doesn't want to hear the truth.

Start the investigation at the beginning - and see where it leads.

Joe, come on perlease... you're not relying on a judge, or a barrister or a detective, or a csi..... you're basing your whole argument on a dog !

 

[Sombrero]

And you don't know why the mother didn't go walking the streets looking for her child? seriously? what's the fookin point in a foreign country when the kidnappers have driven off with your child, and you've got 2 other babies to look after and care for.

Joe you're bullish on circumstansial evidence only.... take an objective view....

It's a bit boring that you think you can decide the outcome of a court case with a little bit of evidence gleaned from a journo !... let the courts decide, and then remember we're all innocent until proven guilty !

 

[Norcon]

And you don't know why the mother didn't go walking the streets looking for her child?

She said she had better things to do.
Like working.

 

[Sombrero]

And you don't know why the mother didn't go walking the streets looking for her child?

She said she had better things to do.
Like working.

Exactly, she didn't say that, and especially in the context you describe/

And your whole argument is based on one video? are you not bothering with a court either?

For what it's worth, my take on what she said meant she was working hard with the relevant authorities.

You're all blinkered.... and forgetting the foundation of what we are... i.e. innocent until proven guilty !