Madeleine accusations 'ludicrous'

Gerry McCann hit out at "ludicrous accusations" that he and his wife
were involved in their daughter Madeleine's death.

The latest unconfirmed allegation is that tests on a liquid found in
the family's hire car suggest the young girl might have overdosed on
sleeping tablets.

Toxicological analysis showed Madeleine consumed a "significant"
quantity of the pills, the French newspaper France Soir reported,
citing unnamed sources in Portugal.

Mr McCann said he and his wife Kate knew they were innocent but were
frightened and had been "backed into a corner".

He told a friend, quoted in The Sun: "There are large craters in every
one of these theories, in these just ludicrous accusations. As far as
Kate and I are concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that
Madeleine is dead. We are 100% together on this, not one grain of
suspicion about each other."

Meanwhile, a Portuguese newspaper reported that detectives have
"nothing concrete" to implicate the McCanns in Madeleine's
disappearance and may be depending on them making a confession.

A "high-ranking" Policia Judiciaria officer, who was not named, told
24 Horas: "We have nothing concrete. There are a lot of indications,
but without more elements it's impossible to determine what happened
in those four vital hours in the case (between 6pm and 10pm on the
night Madeleine vanished).

"Even if the blood and traces gathered in the car or in the apartment
were confirmed to correspond 100% to the little girl's DNA, that
wouldn't prove anything. Those elements could only confirm - and that
doesn't even happen - that the little girl was in the apartment (which
is obvious) and in the car.

"In either of the cases nothing would prove homicide, just that the
body of the little girl had been transferred in the vehicle. We don't
know if Madeleine is dead, and if she is, how it all happened. Was she
strangled? Could she have been beaten? They are questions only the
parents could clarify in an eventual confession."

Other Portuguese newspapers claimed police are investigating whether
the McCanns had any "accomplices" in allegedly disposing of
Madeleine's body and concocting a false story.

On Sep 14, 5:50 pm, joeblow <anygee> wrote:
>
> Mr McCann said he and his wife Kate knew they were innocent but were
> frightened and had been "backed into a corner".
>

If he and his wife truly are innocent, why are they "frightened"?

They're probably in the most envious position imaginable; there's no
way the Portugese judiciary will, under the intense gaze of the
world's media, permit a mistrial, travesty of justice, fabricated
evidence, call it whatever. They'd be the laughing stock of the
world.

Every single piece of evidence will be bomb-proof............if the
McCann's are innocent then there will be no charges and no case to
answer.

But if the Portugese authorities are confident that their allegations
can withstand the world spotlight then they're dead in the water.

The paper read stated that the hair and the body fluids had come from her,
plus it is possible to tell from the samples, if they came from a person
alive or if they came off a corpse, each paper tells you something different
"joeblow" <anygeezer> wrote in message
news:9560
[..]

chuckles_the_scary_clown posted
>On Sep 14, 5:50 pm, joeblow <anygee> wrote:
>>
>> Mr McCann said he and his wife Kate knew they were innocent but were
>> frightened and had been "backed into a corner".
>>
>
>If he and his wife truly are innocent, why are they "frightened"?
>

Stupid, isn't it? They should be confident that nothing bad can happen
to them so long as they are innocent. Like Stefan Kiszko.

On 14 Sep, 17:50, joeblow <anygee> wrote:
[..]
> 24 Horas: "We have nothing concrete. There are a lot of indications,
> but without more elements it's impossible to determine what happened
> in those four vital hours in the case (between 6pm and 10pm on the
> night Madeleine vanished).
>
> "Even if the blood and traces gathered in the car or in the apartment
> were confirmed to correspond 100% to the little girl's DNA, that
> wouldn't prove anything. Those elements could only confirm - and that
> doesn't even happen - that the little girl was in the apartment (which
> is obvious) and in the car.

What was she doing in the boot of the car, could she have been shut in
there as a punnishment and sufocated from the heat and lack of air so
they made up that story about her being abductted, it all sounds very
fishy to me and perhaps the police know whose responsible but have
been paid to keep quite about it, you cant trust those foreign police
anyway as there eyebrows are to thick and bushy

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:15:12 -0700,
chuckles_the_scary_clown wrote:

>> Mr McCann said he and his wife Kate knew they were innocent but were
>> frightened and had been "backed into a corner".

>If he and his wife truly are innocent, why are they "frightened"?

Perhaps because they realise something that you apparently do not -
that innocent people sometimes get convicted. especially in
high-profile cases where there is pressure on the police to solve the
crime.

In message <1189788640.473797.229560>,
joeblow <anygeezer> writes

>"There are large craters in every one of these theories, in these just
>ludicrous accusations.

The problem for the McCanns is that that applies equally to the theory
that they are innocent as it does to every other theory.

"Sasha_Klamp" <Sasha_Klamp> wrote in message
news:4940
> On 14 Sep, 17:50, joeblow <anygee> wrote:
>
> What was she doing in the boot of the car, could she have been shut in
> there as a punnishment and sufocated from the heat and lack of air so
> they made up that story about her being abductted, it all sounds very
> fishy to me and perhaps the police know whose responsible but have
> been paid to keep quite about it, you cant trust those foreign police
> anyway as there eyebrows are to thick and bushy

People who hired the car might have noticed a childs body in it though.
It's risky assuming they would not look in it.
Nice theory nonetheless.

"Richard Miller" <richard> wrote in message
news:fwru
> In message <1189788640.473797.229560>, joeblow
> <anygeezer> writes
>
>>"There are large craters in every one of these theories, in these just
>>ludicrous accusations.
>
> The problem for the McCanns is that that applies equally to the theory
> that they are innocent as it does to every other theory.

They must be presumed innocent unless proved guilty. Their innocence is at
the moment a rebuttable presumption, and I haven't seen any scrap of
evidence which indicates that they are guilty.

There seems to be some inconclusive scientific analysis, and a hope that if
the parents are repeatedly interviewed they will confess. That is a
disgraceful and shameful situation. We should feel as sorry for the McCanns
as we ever did for Sally Clark or Angela Cannings - more so, given that they
don't even have the benefit of criminal legal aid to defend themselves in
the Portuguese courts.

In message <5l31rlF640u4U1>, The Todal
<deadmailbox> writes
>
>They must be presumed innocent unless proved guilty. Their innocence is at
>the moment a rebuttable presumption, and I haven't seen any scrap of
>evidence which indicates that they are guilty.

There certainly isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt, and at the moment
most of things reported in the papers seems wholly unreliable.

But even on the best possible scenario for the McCanns, they are
seriously culpable for leaving the kids alone in the apartment. That
alone would be sufficient for criminal charges against them. And that is
precisely why I do *not* have as much sympathy for them as for Sally
Clarke.

>
>There seems to be some inconclusive scientific analysis, and a hope that if
>the parents are repeatedly interviewed they will confess. That is a
>disgraceful and shameful situation. We should feel as sorry for the McCanns
>as we ever did for Sally Clark or Angela Cannings - more so, given that they
>don't even have the benefit of criminal legal aid to defend themselves in
>the Portuguese courts.

Since one of the conditions of membership of the European Union is to
have some form of legal aid, I would be interested to know more about
that issue. Are you sure they *don't* qualify, rather than just
preferring to pay privately because they think, rightly or wrongly, that
that will get them a better service?

Richard Miller <richard> wrote in
news:EFuA6+yWzF7GFwLF:

> There certainly isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt,

I didn't realise that you and Todal had seen the police file and had sat
down with the prosecutor to discuss the case with him. Perhaps you can
both share with the rest of us the details of the case you feel uneasy
with?

> and at the moment
> most of things reported in the papers seems wholly unreliable.

Well absolutely, there are no facts in the public domain that can be
relied upon and speculation one way or another is entirely without
merit.

> But even on the best possible scenario for the McCanns, they are
> seriously culpable for leaving the kids alone in the apartment. That
> alone would be sufficient for criminal charges against them. And that
> is precisely why I do *not* have as much sympathy for them as for
> Sally Clarke.

Considering that at best Clarke seriously physically harmed both her
children whilst they were still alive; covered up their injuries and
sought no medical assistance. Or at worst did as is mostly likely and
instead of contenting herself with simply harming her children killed
them both, you must either have either a really low opinion of the
McCann’s or alternatively you wore your rose tinted glasses when
reviewing the Clarke case.

"Periander" <4rubbish> wrote in message
news:couk
> Richard Miller <richard> wrote in
> news:EFuA6+yWzF7GFwLF:
>
>> There certainly isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt,
>
> I didn't realise that you and Todal had seen the police file and had sat
> down with the prosecutor to discuss the case with him. Perhaps you can
> both share with the rest of us the details of the case you feel uneasy
> with?

It's all in the Mail on Sunday today....

Yes, I know. Not necessarily a reliable source of information, but some of
the articles are by well-respected journalists.

In message <Xns99AD7C09B1D4Bulmbritwarcouk>, Periander
<4rubbish> writes
>Richard Miller <richard> wrote in
>news:EFuA6+yWzF7GFwLF:
>
>> There certainly isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt,
>
>I didn't realise that you and Todal had seen the police file and had sat
>down with the prosecutor to discuss the case with him. Perhaps you can
>both share with the rest of us the details of the case you feel uneasy
>with?

If the police thought they had proof beyond reasonable doubt, they would
have laid charges already. So that attempt to be wittily sarcastic about
my failure to spell out for the benefit of the slower children that I
was referring to what is currently in the public domain falls rather
flat, old bean.

>
>> and at the moment
>> most of things reported in the papers seems wholly unreliable.
>
>Well absolutely, there are no facts in the public domain that can be
>relied upon and speculation one way or another is entirely without
>merit.

In many cases, facts emerge in the press which are supported by various
different sources and different pieces of evidence, and can therefore be
relied upon at least for the purposes of Usenet discussion. In this
case, many things that appear on one day to be clear and damning facts
turn out the next day to be partial leaks, fabrications or
misinterpretations. This does therefore make this very different from
most other cases we discuss here.

>
>> But even on the best possible scenario for the McCanns, they are
>> seriously culpable for leaving the kids alone in the apartment. That
>> alone would be sufficient for criminal charges against them. And that
>> is precisely why I do *not* have as much sympathy for them as for
>> Sally Clarke.
>
>Considering that at best Clarke seriously physically harmed both her
>children whilst they were still alive; covered up their injuries and
>sought no medical assistance.

Now this is one of the major problems. I know full well that this is
*your interpretation* of the evidence in the case, but it most certainly
is not the best-case scenario in Clarke's favour. I do not know many, if
any, other commentators on the case who share your view.

>Or at worst did as is mostly likely and
>instead of contenting herself with simply harming her children killed
>them both, you must either have either a really low opinion of the
>McCann’s or alternatively you wore your rose tinted glasses when
>reviewing the Clarke case.
>

I do have a very low opinion of the McCanns, yes, but in addition, I do
not have as cynical a view of the evidence in the Clarke case as you do.

"Richard Miller" <richard> wrote in message
news:fwlf
> In message <5l31rlF640u4U1>, The Todal
> <deadmailbox> writes
>
> Since one of the conditions of membership of the European Union is to have
> some form of legal aid, I would be interested to know more about that
> issue. Are you sure they *don't* qualify, rather than just preferring to
> pay privately because they think, rightly or wrongly, that that will get
> them a better service?

No, I'm not sure they don't qualify for criminal legal aid - I made that
rather sweeping assumption after reading that they were concerned about how
they would afford their legal bills without a sponsor.

Given that our criminal legal aid system gives people access to the best
barristers at public expense, it would be difficult to see why they would
not avail themselves of legal aid if it was available. Maybe it only becomes
available if they are actually charged with an offence. I'm guessing. And
moreover, if I was charged with a capital offence in a foreign country I'd
feel much happier with the quality of legal representation that England
could provide. I'd certainly not want to put myself entirely in the hands
of, for instance, an attorney in Florida.

On 16 Sep, 13:58, "The Todal" <deadmail> wrote:
And
> moreover, if I was charged with a capital offence in a foreign country I'd
> feel much happier with the quality of legal representation that England
> could provide. I'd certainly not want to put myself entirely in the hands
> of, for instance, an attorney in Florida.

Wouldn't you want a lawyer who worked in, and knew, the local system?
If and when they come to try, wouldn't they be a mite disadvantage by
having a lawyer who couldn't speak the language of the court?

Ian