Maddy McCann

I didn't say that I "hate cops". I said I don't trust cops. They feed cases to the prosecutor whom gets paid to put you in a cage. It makes a prosecutor look bad if he cannot accomplish this.

My point being, the police shouldn't allow a magic machine to determine the direction of the investigation. It is not admissible in most courts, unlike "evidence" and "facts".

I have never heard you say this before. This is the interenet. I'm sure you are aware of the "know it all" syndrome that some people suffer from.

I believe you. About being an ex-cop, that is. I had to question you in order to gauge your reaction. You seem genuine.

Looking up is indicative that one is searching their brain for an answer or excuse. Looking down? I believe that is indicative of guilt. Not 100% sure, but this is why I always made a point of looking a cop in his eyes when I lied to them.

That is the BEST case offered by the institution that is in the business of selling polygraph examiners on the open market. Logic tells us this is an inflated, best case figure. I posted several sources that hotly dispute this number as actually being much much lower. 80-95% depending on the operator.

The way I see it, the cops should be investigating upon evidence, not magic. Even in the best case, you would have a 2% chance of sending the cops after yourself, the innocent person. Better hope you aren't that 2 in a hundred.

Real evidence has a 100% chance of being accurate. DNA, the murder weapon with your prints etc. Real evidence.

When people start wandering into the realm of unreliable mechanical mind reading devices, we are being dishonest to the investigation. It is a proverbial "desperate move" by the police in the absence of real evidence.

 

While you are high on it yes. It does not cause permanent paranoia. I have been sober for days, weeks even months at a time over the years. I am sober most of the time. Yet, I never trust the cops.

 

That is quite a statement. That rules out all evidence. Even a 1 in a billion chance of someone else contributing the DNA. You have now also eliminated eyewitness testimony we all know it is not near 100% reliable. A little basic statistics., Several pieces of evidence taken together can give proof beyond a reasonable doubt when neither single piece of the evidence would. Let us take an 80% certainty level on each piece of evidence. This leaves a 20% chance the single piece of evidence points the wrong way. Now we have two pieces of evidence with am 80% certainty rate. This lowers the chance of error to 4%. Put a third piece of evidence in at an 80% certainty rate and now the chance of error is down to .8%.

 

Often, a DNA match has something like a 1 in hundreds of billions, even hundreds of trillions, odds of error.

I am all for a case built on a solid stack of circumstantial evidence. Many times it is the only way to hold a murderer accountable for a near perfect crime.

In the McCann's case, I don't see but a sprinkling of sparse circumstantial evidence. I honestly cannot qualify any of it as such.

The hardest thing to overlook is their alibi. It was impossible for them to have killed and/or hidden the body of Madeline McCann if you follow the time line. They have alibi's. They had no reasonable opportunity to hide a body before calling police.

It makes no sense to claim they hid the body somewhere and then called the police, thinking to get rid of the body later.

When I said "real evidence", I was speaking in the context of physical evidence.

 

The timeline was what changed my mind.

 

Away from or toward guilt?

 

Away from guilt.

 

I C.

Then you aren't retarded, good.

Seriously though, one has to fully question this angle before moving on. What did the McCann's do with the body in the few minutes they had? Did they run around the corner and stick her ass under a rock? They certainly didn't place her in the trunk of their rental car, if they even had one at that point. I mean to say, if they had only a few minutes to pick a hiding spot, they had better pick a god damn good one because they are about to launch a full scale search for the item they are hiding.

Remembering that they are in a foreign country that is alien to them is key.

The only manner that I've seen this alibi attacked is to insinuate that one or more of the 9 alibi witnesses from the bar are working in collusion with the McCann's. Which makes no sense. What incentive would these casual acquaintances have to support the McCann's in getting away with the most unspeakable act humanly imaginable, murdering ones own child. It would take an extraordinary amount of cash to coerce even the most nefarious person to get in on a plot such as this. A monetary transaction such as this would leave an unmistakable paper/electronic trail.

 

Why ? Use a litle imagination. Suppose that for whatever reason, one of the parents lost conrol and beat the child to death, hence the blood residue.

In this senario we can see that the crime was not planned. If it were, it would have been executed outdoors, leaving the police with no crime scene, and not places that once held a body, as confirmed by trained dogs. And no blood residue on the floor either.

Now they see how vulnerable they are to capture. They have no vehicle to remove and hide the body somewhere safe. The kid is wraped in a blanket like a sleepng child and carried out, no one who sees suspects anything. Parents carry kids like this all the time.

The body is secreted somewhere, where dogs cannot gain access to alert curious owners. Maybe somewhere in the church ground they were ostensibly fond of visiting.

Its midday, so they go shoping for bleach and other chemicals/detergents. Back at the hotel they bleach and scrub the floor tiles, and bleach the walls and ceilings. As doctors they know this is necessary as the police may search for minute blood samples using search tools. They get their clothes washed at a launderette immediately. Many other jobs are done, and they spend hours thinking of other things that need to be done. They then concoct their story.

Now they need to create an opportunity for the pseudo-knaper to strike. They leave the kids alone, with the door unlocked. Yes they know they will be censured for this, but its getting late and they really cannot think of another plausible occurance to explain the dissapearance of the kid.

They go out for a meal leaving the other two kids alone. They return every 1/2 hour, playing the doting parents publicly for other guests.

They return from their meal, and start crying and screaming. Their dear child is missing. Won't somebody call the police !

Several days later as the heat dies down, they hire a car, and move the corpse to its final resting place. Most likely the sea. Its nearby and all but impossible to search, and the fish will remove all flesh. The bones will never be found.

They can now only be discovered if they incriminate themselves. They believe they can survive any ammount of questioning / psycho - war.

Why Maddie and not the others? - because Maddie is dead. Why not the other two?- because they are alive.

 

I think y'all motherf*ckers are using a bit too much imagination as it is.

Beating a child to death would produce lots of blood, spatter patterns on adjacent object/walls/clothing. A mess indeed. Remember, they had but minutes to kill their daughter, think of a place to hide her, subsequently hide the body, get back, clean up, make up a story and call the police. If it doesn't fit.......you must acquit. It don't fit. This line is entirely void of logic and stands in full disregard to common sense and plausibility.

Big problem with that is that Maddy was seen ALIVE, with her parents, only a few hours before she was reported missing. In this tangled menagerie of activity, surely there would be evidence, witnesses and the like. There is none.

The dogs didn't hit on a dead body being present at the apartment. They hit on minuscule trace amounts of blood that were so small and degraded, that they couldn't even be matched as the same blood type as Maddy, let alone establish a proper DNA match.

This fact supports a lone intruder. Whom cannot carry two or three children weighing in excess of 50 pounds in dead (sleeping) weight.

I find it quite ironic that you speak of "imagination". Because this is the kind of thinking that the tabloid fodder has spawned. Inducing people to entertain their macabre side by indulging in a wildly imaginative spectacle at the expense of two grieving parents.

The McCann's DID NOT have time to ditch a body. The only reports of anyone carrying a child around were of an unidentified man.

 

Or they couldve poisoned there daughter accidentally, paid a local thug to take the wrapped child in a blanket away, hence the eyewitness of a man carrying a child that night. Then later hooking up with said thug and properly disposing of the body later. How about that?

It makes perfect sence to me.

 

Lemme guess, Snaffy. You watch CSI and all of its spin-offs? You like TV shows such as "24"?

The last two posts in opposition to my view of this incident have much in common. Imagination and unlikely convoluted scenario. Funny that these suppositions are offered in combat of the placid, un-sexy "a pervert took the kid by climbing in the window when the parents left the room" theory. Which requires no imagination.

 

My father-in-law is the most paranoid man I know. He didn't want to get a computer because he didn't want the government to be able to track him. If my mother-in-law wasn't around to keep him somewhat grounded he would be walking around with tinfoil on his head. That is what years of marijana abuse will do to you. Have to watch out for The Man.

 

I watch alot of Forensic Files and Cops.
You pegged me.
I never watch CSI or anything like that made up. I like documenties mostly .

 

That souds like the four hundred acid trips he musta took.

 

CB, I love ya man, but do you really believe that? If they had accidentally overdosed their child would they really involve another party in it. Also, having a medical background they would know the dangers of drugging a child, I do not believe they would do such a thing. I think they were too trusting and naive.

 

I'm assuming the dad was a man, right? And it was dark? Couldn't the man sen be the dad, or is that impossible?

 

Same here. Sorry for the assumption. I particularly like the series 'Cold Case Files' and the real-time documentary 'The First 48'.

I think you have watched too many government produced propaganda films, Tori.

I grew up in some very poor neighborhoods. I ran the streets until my late teens. This sort of upbringing will often manifest itself in an acute distrust of authority by way of witnessing its abuses.

Much of this can be irrational, yes. But much of this sort of thinking is quite wise, and an affront to naivety.

Some of us lead. Some of us follow. Some of us say "F*ck you two, Im'a be over here goin' this a'way. (how's that for conjunction abuse?)

 

Considering he was with 9 other people that testify to the fact he wasn't unaccounted for, for any more than a few minutes. Yes, it is impossible.

 

I don't have to watch propaganda films, all I have to do is watch my in laws and all of their friends.

My husband grew up the same way and has a very different outlook. When he was six his step-dad beat him with a two-by-four and broke his ribs and arm. He was in foster care until he was twelve then went to live with his dad who stole cars for a living. He helped steal over 60 cars and then got busted by the cops. He testified against his dad and had his record expunged, then lived on his own working at night and finishing high school. He joined the military and is drawn toward law enforcement. We are a product of our experiences, but some people learn from them and move on

Maybe he has a twin? Where were the other two children?