Blacksmith:They just dont get it

MaryB wrote:But the point is that every single time it seems as if the whole truth will come out it doesn't. I don't see the reason for this delay. The only thing I can think of is that by the time the next trial comes Scotland Yard will have ruled on abduction. If they have the power to do this. I can't think of any other reason why they would want a delay. I don't get it either. In fact I never have. Trying to apply logic to this seems impossible. Nothing but confusion.

No, I disagree, the only reason for the Mc's delaying is that they know they can't win, if they thought for one minute that they could they'd be carrying on and using the victory as a PR extravaganza...they're going to lose though and they know it, so another bit of spin talking of out of court settlements, which the claimants never ask for, it would usually be the defendant (and of course we know that if Dr Amaral had asked for such a thing the Mc's would have refused and it would have been splashed all over the UK media along the lines of "disgraced cops begs the McCanns for mercy blah blah)

I also don't see how you can think that SY can rule abduction, they have to have evidence and there is no evidence of an abduction, and so far SY have been totally non-committal in their assessment, e.g. alive/dead/abducted/not abducted, in fact the only thing they have said with any certainty is that Madeleine is missing and has been since 3rd May 2007

matthew wrote:Just to clear up the nose bleed...

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled.

To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds.

He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

The interesting thing about Madeleines 'common' nosebleeds are that they never occurred at the crèche as nothing is mentioned in the files. I don't think it's common for a 3 year old child to have nosebleeds without being injured, or am l daft? Never heard of a child that young or known of one, none of my 6 year olds friends, schoolmates or any party we've ever attended.

margaret wrote:

matthew wrote:Just to clear up the nose bleed...

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled.

To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds.

He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

The interesting thing about Madeleines 'common' nosebleeds are that they never occurred at the crèche as nothing is mentioned in the files. I don't think it's common for a 3 year old child to have nosebleeds without being injured, or am l daft? Never heard of a child that young or known of one, none of my 6 year olds friends, schoolmates or any party we've ever attended.

My son used to get dreadful nosebleeds at a very early age. They were horrendous and looked like someone had been butchered. He had them from 3 years onwards but numerous procedures and visits to specialists to have the vessels cautherised finally did the trick and he rarely gets one now he's an adult.

The reason I think SY will rule abduction is because why did that policeman come on at the beginning of the review and say abduction. Well that's why I understood he was saying. And the McCanns probably just think they have a better chance of winning after the review. I'm not saying I'm right but it's only my opinion on things.

dazedandconfused wrote:

margaret wrote:

matthew wrote:Just to clear up the nose bleed...

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled.

To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds.

He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

The interesting thing about Madeleines 'common' nosebleeds are that they never occurred at the crèche as nothing is mentioned in the files. I don't think it's common for a 3 year old child to have nosebleeds without being injured, or am l daft? Never heard of a child that young or known of one, none of my 6 year olds friends, schoolmates or any party we've ever attended.

My son used to get dreadful nosebleeds at a very early age. They were horrendous and looked like someone had been butchered. He had them from 3 years onwards but numerous procedures and visits to specialists to have the vessels cautherised finally did the trick and he rarely gets one now he's an adult.

as a tiny baby my mum had to take me to hospital with nose bleeds -- it went on for a bit -- then i had to go to a ent and it was discovered i had a small growth up my nose -- it was removed -- it grew back second op worked -- even now i dont tend to get nose bleeds

MaryB wrote:The reason I think SY will rule abduction is because why did that policeman come on at the beginning of the review and say abduction. Well that's why I understood he was saying. And the McCanns probably just think they have a better chance of winning after the review. I'm not saying I'm right but it's only my opinion on things.

They are looking at all possibilities and the outcome will be where the Evidence leads: They can't and won't say in the end that it was Abduction if it wasn't.

There was a huge amount of debate about what was said and why at the time of the Panorama business and I think most people concluded that it wasn't a terribly well presented effort by DCI Redwood to effectively say nothing of value at all - in accordance with the original brief for the Review.

I shouldn't worry about the past at all, just the future and the reality

The End Is Nigh wrote:

matthew wrote:
...As much as we might like to see the media go to town on the McCanns & Co for what we know...is there a case for having to be careful what goes to print,we wouldn't want justice being thwarted on any technicality...i know im such a gullible naive optimist but have to bring balance

Agree entirely.

I second that,
once the media are safe to do so they will attack the McCanns AND TAPAS FRIENDS (no they are not safe not by a long chalk) with every tiny bit of fibre in there bodies, with all the scandal will be able to dig up and find out about the lot of them......till then I'm happy for them to stay out of it, we wouldn't want them affecting the outcome of any trial would we

MaryB wrote:The reason I think SY will rule abduction is because why did that policeman come on at the beginning of the review and say abduction. Well that's why I understood he was saying. And the McCanns probably just think they have a better chance of winning after the review. I'm not saying I'm right but it's only my opinion on things.

Some police officers like Amaral very astute, very clever not all but quite a few I would say, now for SY at the beginning of the review to come out and say they think "Abduction' is to give the McCanns a false sense of security, IMO they couldn't really say anything else could they.........The silence from SY is defining to say the least.

I think Redwood saying there ware 195 possible leads and there was a chance Madeleine would be found alive, for the Chief Detective, very strange. He should have known better.

Yes, but he also said Madeleine could be dead and that she went missing on 3rd May 2007 and she's still missing... just general bluster with no one, including the McCanns any wiser as to what he or his colleagues think.

Also on the subject of nosebleeds my daughter got really bad nose bleeds between the ages of 3 and 4, we were just about to get it cauterised when they suddenly stopped as suddenly as they started, but they were awful at the time, though according to the GP looked a lot worse than they actually were...used to have me in a panic though...

dazedandconfused wrote:

margaret wrote:

matthew wrote:Just to clear up the nose bleed...

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled.

To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds.

He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

The interesting thing about Madeleines 'common' nosebleeds are that they never occurred at the crèche as nothing is mentioned in the files. I don't think it's common for a 3 year old child to have nosebleeds without being injured, or am l daft? Never heard of a child that young or known of one, none of my 6 year olds friends, schoolmates or any party we've ever attended.

My son used to get dreadful nosebleeds at a very early age. They were horrendous and looked like someone had been butchered. He had them from 3 years onwards but numerous procedures and visits to specialists to have the vessels cautherised finally did the trick and he rarely gets one now he's an adult.

cass wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:

margaret wrote:

matthew wrote:Just to clear up the nose bleed...

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled.

To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds.

He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

The interesting thing about Madeleines 'common' nosebleeds are that they never occurred at the crèche as nothing is mentioned in the files. I don't think it's common for a 3 year old child to have nosebleeds without being injured, or am l daft? Never heard of a child that young or known of one, none of my 6 year olds friends, schoolmates or any party we've ever attended.

My son used to get dreadful nosebleeds at a very early age. They were horrendous and looked like someone had been butchered. He had them from 3 years onwards but numerous procedures and visits to specialists to have the vessels cautherised finally did the trick and he rarely gets one now he's an adult.

as a tiny baby my mum had to take me to hospital with nose bleeds -- it went on for a bit -- then i had to go to a ent and it was discovered i had a small growth up my nose -- it was removed -- it grew back second op worked -- even now i dont tend to get nose bleeds

Good to know I've never encountered a child that young with them only when they were older. A bit odd then that Maddie had never visited a doctor about them.

Panda wrote:I think Redwood saying there ware 195 possible leads and there was a chance Madeleine would be found alive, for the Chief Detective, very strange. He should have known better.

I believe panda this was done by Redwood to keep the Mcs and there supporters quiet.....as I've said false sense of security.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Panda wrote:I think Redwood saying there ware 195 possible leads and there was a chance Madeleine would be found alive, for the Chief Detective, very strange. He should have known better.

I believe panda this was done by Redwood to keep the Mcs and there supporters quiet.....as I've said false sense of security.

He had to say this. He certainly couldn't have said what I think, based on the files.

Bobsy wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Panda wrote:I think Redwood saying there ware 195 possible leads and there was a chance Madeleine would be found alive, for the Chief Detective, very strange. He should have known better.

I believe panda this was done by Redwood to keep the Mcs and there supporters quiet.....as I've said false sense of security.

He had to say this. He certainly couldn't have said what I think, based on the files.

Actually Bobsy he didn't have to say anything. IMO his appearance on TV was an unmitigated disaster and should never have happened. Since when do police officers get compfy on studio couches and chat about ongoing investigations? What possible value could it have in solving this case? If it had any value whatsoever - why doesn't it happen in all other serious crime cases? Why the exception here? These are questions which raise all kinds of doubts - not only in my mind I hasten to add.

T4two wrote:

Bobsy wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Panda wrote:I think Redwood saying there ware 195 possible leads and there was a chance Madeleine would be found alive, for the Chief Detective, very strange. He should have known better.

I believe panda this was done by Redwood to keep the Mcs and there supporters quiet.....as I've said false sense of security.

He had to say this. He certainly couldn't have said what I think, based on the files.

Actually Bobsy he didn't have to say anything. IMO his appearance on TV was an unmitigated disaster and should never have happened. Since when do police officers get compfy on studio couches and chat about ongoing investigations? What possible value could it have in solving this case? If it had any value whatsoever - why doesn't it happen in all other serious crime cases? Why the exception here? These are questions which raise all kinds of doubts - not only in my mind I hasten to add.

I couldn't agree more T4two, but he did appear. Now whose idea that was I don't know but he did and so he said the word abduction, as though happening in the UK and the words dead or alive. The 195 leads was to make the millions worthwhile and no he shouldn't have been on the television but he was and I wonder whose idea that was. Unprecedented.

Bobsy wrote:

T4two wrote:

Bobsy wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Panda wrote:I think Redwood saying there ware 195 possible leads and there was a chance Madeleine would be found alive, for the Chief Detective, very strange. He should have known better.

I believe panda this was done by Redwood to keep the Mcs and there supporters quiet.....as I've said false sense of security.

He had to say this. He certainly couldn't have said what I think, based on the files.

Actually Bobsy he didn't have to say anything. IMO his appearance on TV was an unmitigated disaster and should never have happened. Since when do police officers get compfy on studio couches and chat about ongoing investigations? What possible value could it have in solving this case? If it had any value whatsoever - why doesn't it happen in all other serious crime cases? Why the exception here? These are questions which raise all kinds of doubts - not only in my mind I hasten to add.

I couldn't agree more T4two, but he did appear. Now whose idea that was I don't know but he did and so he said the word abduction, as though happening in the UK and the words dead or alive. The 195 leads was to make the millions worthwhile and no he shouldn't have been on the television but he was and I wonder whose idea that was. Unprecedented.

Yes, unprecedented and IMO unethical. Fact is we are dealing with a case which has demonstrably been subjected to political pressure by the UK at more than one decisive moment, which is considered by the Foreign Office to be potentially damaging to UK/Portugal relations (irrespective of which political party is in government) and which has a long history of obstructive behaviour by certain elements within the British police. All factors which I find extremely concerning.

I dont think its unprecedented for the police to speak about one of the most famous unsolved crimes in the world. Theres lots of other famous cases where the police have spoken all over the world. This is an even more special case considering the political involvement that instigated the review.

I do believe that there was a reason for the timing of the panorama.
I felt that nothing was given away which was a positive, however we did hear information from both perspectives. I think it was right he talked about the leads from the mccanns perspective as it shows that they will follow through all possible scenarios before coming to their decision. It proves that they have been thorough and it also leaves no windows or patio doors for the slippery eels which we know the mccana are to base an escape upon as the police would have already ruled it out.

Correct me if im wrong but the mccanns have been reasonably silent since that panorama, yet prior they were getting a bit mouthy about it and also the forthcoming book. It took the wind ou of their sails which is a good thing.

We also know that there has been no leaks from the 30-strong murder team (love that expression from the express) since the start.

We also know the media have been silent.
I queried super injunction from the mccanns (hence other thread) but i am now leaning towards an arrangement by scotland yard with the media. In exchange for silence i believe redwood agreed to give an interview, hence panorama and possibly some more after. We know this is a common compromise as it happens each tome prince harry goes to afghanistan. The media are quiet in exchange for the press conference after.

Why would SY make a deal? Because we know there has been cases where defendants argue that they will not get a fair trial due to negative media attention. It is a common argument iv heard. Unfortunately for thr mccans they cant make this argument since they end up in court as nothing overtly questioning or negative has been printed! I do believe that the mccanns will be ending up in court especially as the dna markers are valid evidence in the UK.

(On mobile so i apologise for any typos)