I wonder what sort of a contract they have with Metodo3

if they do manage to obtain part of the PJ's files, and hand them over to Metodo, how can they be sure the boss man (Carlos something) won't write his own account of the case

or, heaven forbid, do a bit of proper investigating

Am I the only person here who translates solucao (sorry I CBA to do a cedilla) as 'outcome'?

Occam's Razor, folks.

Sheesh.

"solução" can be translated as "outcome". BUT 1) Pinto Monteiro's use of that word was so unexpected that even the Portuguese medias applied quotation marks and 2) PM said "uma" (a) and not "a" (the) solução.

I'm sure you have the right credentials. Interpreting/analysing text is more than that. It's a fine/empathic art.

x

Im the 12th best in the world at it.

I wonder what sort of a contract they have with Metodo3

if they do manage to obtain part of the PJ's files, and hand them over to Metodo, how can they be sure the boss man (Carlos something) won't write his own account of the case

or, heaven forbid, do a bit of proper investigating

Mr Charalambous said: "In particular, the defendants accept that none of the claimants had any involvement whatever in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.

"They accept that none of the claimants has any paedophile tendencies or connection with paedophiles or paedophile websites and that none of them lied to the police or obstructed the investigations.
"They accept that Mr Murat's actions after the abduction were entirely proper and were motivated by a desire to help find Madeleine McCann.

So, is it just me, who has a horrible feeling about all this? Including the Murat settlement?

I find the thread on this forum praising Robert Murat a little (well, actually, a lot) distasteful - but there you go, each to their own. But, let's all remember, before
we fall at his feet and praise him, that the police made Robert Murat an Arguido. Now, this is where many people jump up and down and point the finger at Lori, (quite
rightly) and say "it was her fault, and the Tapas 3 who pointed the finger at him). Now, hang on a minute - we can't have it both ways.

Lori and the Tapas lot didn't make Robert Murat an Arguido. The police did. The same police who made Kate and Gerry McCann Arguidos. And this is where I get
unstuck. Because it isn't as black and white as some people wish to think. We can't say "the police had evidence to make Kate and Gerry Arguidos - good on them" and
then say "poor Robert, he was only made an Arguido because of that daft girl from the Mirror". Because that means that the judgement of the police is questionable. We can't have it both ways - the same police made 3 people Arguidos - and in a nutshell, if we trust them to have made Kate and Gerry Arguidos based on good, solid judgement and evidence, we have to say the same about their reasons for making Robert Murat one.

Also - the payouts. The McCanns were vilified for receiving their dosh from the Express. Robert is being praised for receiving his.

Ok - I know Robert didn't leave his daughter alone; I know the McCanns did. I totally agree that they were negligent, that they must be held accountable for their
dispicable actions.

But I don't agree with cherry picking.

What's good for the goose.......

I just felt I needed to say that.

Sofa - great to see you back - the main thread has sorely missed you.

Blackie - I just knew it. I just knew you were a Scorpio - all my favourite boys are

So, is it just me, who has a horrible feeling about all this?

[?

The DNA, blood, cadaver findings that seems to stack up against the McCann's. What, apart from being fingered by T3, Clarrie & Lori, is there against Murat?

It's a bit of a long story for which I shall be soundly kicked here. But let's say they were 'innocent' of her death and only guilty of serial, prolonged neglect that they knew wasn't okay - they'd never have done this at home, left them in bed and gone off a football field away to drink.

So the guilt of neglect, the horrible, eating guilt of it - the idea of what Madelene was suffering at that time, and of their being complicit in it.

So that explains why they would call the media, call the cops, demand dogs, and media scrutiny, ask for the FBI, publicize, do the PR campaign etc. - if your kid's kidnapped and you have those resources and contacts and the money and smarts to do that you would do it. Shutters were 'jemmied'because you don't want to admit you couldn't even lock the door lest you be bothered to have to unlock it, and possibly have the noise wake them and end your fun. You point, and point robustly at KIDNAPPING knowing that's what had to happen and also to deflect from the neglect that facilitated it.

Why then the leaving when made arguidos? Why the refusal to answer questions, take a LDT or do a reconstruction?

Because the answers to that would reveal their deception - not at having killed her but at having left her, night after night and for how long really? Maybe having to admit you DID abuse her - slap her around - just a little. She was difficult after all. No repeat of May 1st is wanted...

It would explain the 'pact' '-all Tapas were equally guilty of that neglect and risked being jailed for a year to three years, loss of reputation, livelihood, children taken by protective services, they were all guilty and McCanns' lawyers can have convinced them if they don't shut up they may all go down for the same thing. Let us handle this.

Doing the reconsruction puts them back in PT to reveal that their stories of checking in no way are true.

So they've lied and hindered an investigation - which could also have prevented the real timeline being known, and hence a solution, to be found. Seems like a good idea at the time perhaps -@rse saving - but a few weeks/ months later when you realize what this means - that if you're caught in one lie they will think you are guilty of more - or at the very least have PROOF of a crime they can charge you with, and you go from brave victim
to lying neglector conspirator -possibly abuser - possibly sedater - you would not go back, regardless because you don't think the PJ will find out who kidnapped her from that reconstruction but you DO know they'll find out what YOU did and did not do, that is a crime: neglect leading to harm.

Why discriminate between being afraid to return to PDL or answer the Pjs questions, lest you be found guilty and jailed for dumping a body vs for neglect resulting in the obvious harm of kidnap?

The outcome to your lifestyle and safety, their primary selfish concern, is the same - loss of everything they hold dear. The unimaginable contempt and disgust felt by friends and family as it comes out that oops, maybe they didn't check, that night, maybe the night before, or May 1, they were out til past midnight while Maddie sobbed and a predator lay in wait, watched and planned; that they were told to get a sitter but refused, that they left her, again, to the night's tender mercies, selfishly. Doped her up her perhaps - 'let her down' by rendering her unable even to assist herself.

Kate's cry they've taken her - not a set up, but what she feared in her deepest heart when she left the kids every night, what if someone were to get in and take one? The worst nightmare - yet you go, anyway. Because you're 'with a group' and 'so into each other.' if you'd thought about them for even a monement you would not have done it - so ipso facto they did not think of it, even for a single moment. Not a great parenting concept.

What it doesn't explain is 1. Tanner seeing G and JW and them not seeing her nor bundleman
2. cadaver dogs alerting
3. forensics.

1. Tanner could have made that up to be 'helpful' - helping them ALL by constructing a kidnapper since they are arguably less guilty if someone actually planned this out and did the harmful deed, or, G and JW could have been deep in convo and just missed her. It happens.

2. Cadaver dogs are meant to find where dead bodis are. not where they've been. But if they are THAT good and that sensitive, could they not then also alert to Kate if she checked pulses and did toe tags on cadavers only a few weeks prior? If they can find where a corpse was 100 years ago could they not also smell death on the gp? Doesn't explain the car boot of course but then there's the nappies....

3. Forensics ruled inconclusive. 15 of 19 markers - is that enough in US and UK and only not enough in PT because the science is less mature? Or were the results really inconclusive on those few cells, could they have come from a twin - do we have real proof that it was CADAVER fluid?

If so, if the dogs aren't wrong, ever - not that they aren't right in times that would impress you, but one judge said wrong 60% or something - could they have smelled poopy nappy in the car boot? Or if they are so good, could they not be detecting another corpse on Kate?

I f the dogs and the forensics are there, then I've got to get my mind around how they got rid of the body and when - and why they demanded such scrutiny and involvement of government, Uk LE, their child a WOC who could make decisions detrimental to them - that could surely find their involvement, find them guilty of neglect, take the twins, if they didn't believe that the checks were done or kids properly left alone; and how, and why, they got 7, or even three of 7, reasonable people to help them cover this death up vs lie about checks. It was our affair only.

The forensics I would like to know about and the honest opinion not just of a detective who works with cadaver dogs but with the dog handler who works Eddie and Keela. jane Tanner I think is a liar and for reasons that may best be known to her may have embellished to save her own skin and all their skins rather than be in league with mcCanns to invent a false sighting.
And most of all, a year on - they seem to have moved on, to holiday, to giggle at the end of the interview, to refuse to go back and help, to continue to try to paint themselves as responsible - because they know in their depest heart they aren't responsible parents, they aren't proper advocates of children, but they have moved on, they have, to coin a phrase, suffered enough. By their own lights.

Selfish.

widowan - this is a brilliant post. Especially in the first half, i have tried to express the same thoughts in some previous posts but sadly i lack your great writing talent. I have often wondered if they panicked in the moment, for no more sinister reason than the neglect - that their priorities got mixed up (fueled by booze) by fear of being in a foreign country and in unchartered territory. Kate was heard saying 'we've let her down, we've let her down (please don't say 'links please' at this stage, if you've followed the case) - then, they couldn't turn back.

You mentioned the dogs... i think it is very damning that they alerted only to the McCanns' hire car out of a line-up of 10 cars.
To explain this away with soiled nappies, sweaty sandals and rotting meat is insulting to anyone of normal intelligence.

Ok. I have all weekend to do it, I will do it, since it's important to you.

have you seen the PT paper, saying that Payne has some sort of pedophile connection? ??? What's that about?

I can't believe McCanns would cover for Murat or Payne or anyone, about this, can there be more to it than we know? (Duh - hardly the $64 question) I'm not in a position of asking people for the truth who can lie to me, as wit a journalist in a voluntary interview. I demand the truth of my children and other than that let the chips fall where they my and take my own council and evidence of my own senses when lied to by my boss, colleagues, government etc.

My MO is to sit people down - when I have that power - I don't beat the truth out of them I merely look them in the face as She Who Must Be Obeyed and Expect the Truth, and get it.

Like most of us I don't encounter liars regularly , at least not liars who are lying about anything so significant as murder of a child, and therefore my experience in limited to small wafflings of young people who Fear my Gaze, understand that there is nothing they can do that will p*** me off more than lying, no sin they can commit that will not be worse if compounded by lying, and hence tend to fold like cheap lawn chairs if they do try anything funny. They don't get to have lawyers present or stand on the fifth amendment, I do realise that those sort of people exist as well as sociopaths and what not, I never thought Murat fell into that category, but I have a working BS detector that is particularly well honed when it's verbal information. So I will go and have a listen and tell you what I think, for what that is worth...

Like most of us I don't encounter liars regularly , ...

Widowan, have you listened to the link? (I put it within my post). It's completely clear that RM is referring to THAT night. I know you're were having difficulty accessing it, but it really is worth it. If you can open it, just slide the thingy to 5mins and you won't have to tolerate too much pain - first you'll hear the prelude to Bilton's question, then the question itself and then the answer. I think that reading the transcript alone doesn't really demonstrate how the question evolved. RM had been bemoaning the way he's been treated, how there'd been suspicions and rumours about him and so on. So Bilton asks 'so tell YOUR side then....what DID happen that night?' What other night could he possibly have meant??

The odd thing is, I watched this interview somehow (yesterday) and I'm sure this question/answer bit wasn't in there. I really need to check, and if it has been edited out, then boy, that makes it even more interesting.

But how can you know this if they are liars ? That's the whole point of liars.

Like most of us I don't encounter liars regularly , ...

I assume you're addressing me here?

It's not that it's important to me, it's important that you don't make pronouncements about something that you haven't actually managed to listen to, especially if those pronouncements could influence the opinions of others who haven't listened to it either. This is how forum rumours take hold. I don't understand why you're talking about your lie detection skills either. No-one is suggesting that RM is lying here. He says a man asked for his help and that's why he was under suspicion of being involved. What I'm interested in is who that man was, because my money is on the man who quite obviously is lying - McFuck himself.

Obviously, you don't hang out with Lawyers much then, do ya???

Widowan, I have watched this interview as well as heard it on the radio link and I agree, the guy appears to be completely genuine.

You seem to have very reliable instincts and I have never really had any reason to disagree with your views (which is why I mainly read them and nod a lot). It suprises me that you've interpreted RM's response to a clear question about THAT NIGHT as some kind of general statement about being helpful in the aftermath. All I can think is that you're rushing this, or that you're listening to something completely different! ( I need to go to bed though - Christ, it's 5am here and now CdeM are feeding us some scandalous sleaze about Payne....I can only think they're desperate to get sued too.) So, goodnight for now. :)

Time to rest, Monday will come soon -

cheers

I hope your little one is better, by the way.

yes - thanks for asking

Not that I need to worry anymore - all parents have been excused any kind of parental duties anymore thanks to the McCann's. I'm off up the boozer tonight to celebrate and no need for a babysitter. Result!

Don't forget to unlock your doors, in case of fire - you can't be too careful.

'Lo all,

Is this where I say I told you so......

Well, my analysis ...was utterly wrong

I am certainly going to brood on my own judgement and contributions

I hope I haven’t helped lead anyone here up a garden path.

Looks like it.
Can I just point out that 3.1 and 4 are redundant.

Just covering all the bases. Twice.

So, Twigs, you must have seen it coming. You were arguing against any forensic evidence of death yourself. I can't believe you got them being dislikeable confused with them being guilty of an implausibly audacious and successful crime. And you're not the hater type. So, what happened?

why would covering up an accidental death be an audacious and successful crime?