McCanns v Amaral injuction hearing

[Jon Corby]

Anyone else following this? Are we even allowed to discuss it here given the McCanns' mighty legal team?

One assumes they thought Amaral would shit his pants at a £1m suit, and it wouldn't go to court. As it is, he didn't, and now everything they fought to suppress is coming out in court. Even if they win, surely this is worse?

[Charlie Reams]

Interesting. Hopefully Wikileaks will return and publish the whole book. Even if he's wrong I'm interested in what he has to say.

[Jon Corby]

Interesting. Hopefully Wikileaks will return and publish the whole book. Even if he's wrong I'm interested in what he has to say.

The book is readily available on the web now. Just another reason why the case is counter-productive - far more people are aware of it and its contents since the injuction than they were previously.

[Lesley Hines]

My sister (living in Portugal at the time) and cleaner (Portuguese) have both read it and are absolutely convinced of their guilt. I'll have to ask her for a copy - she did give me quite a detailed synopsis but, if truth be told, I'd had rather a few on board and it was late...
The situation seemed to be that they were all swingers away for a swinging holiday and all of them drugged their children to make sure they didn't wake up; they just accidentally overdosed Maddie.
I'd have to admit having trouble with this: I think the amount of collusion required between the group for that many people who stand to lose everything would be too much to ask.
Anyway, she did direct me to these websites for more information.

[Jon Corby]

The book doesn't make any such explicit accusations Lesley, unless I read it completely wrong (and I have to confess I have only skimmed it to try and get the 'gist' and am only reading it in detail now)

I think it pretty much just presents the facts as established by the PJ before the case was shelved, without resorting to wild speculation to fill in the gaps. (Indeed the closing of the case should not in any way be confused with any declaration of innocence on their part, as they have tried to spin it)

Once you accept that the 'abduction theory' is an invention of the McCanns with absolutely no corroborating evidence, peddled by them to the media from the word 'go' (against the advice of the PJ), you kind of open your mind a bit. I haven't actually read a convincing theory which covers everything though. Intriguing, baffling case.

[Charlie Reams]

One for Jonathan Creek, I reckon.

[Lesley Hines]

I'm relieved about that, tbh. I did think that they were some pretty extreme conclusions when there was very little evidence about what actually did happen. I must be confusing what she said with some of the dodgier websites she'd been surfing about it (she and hb are both coppers, so I think they had an interest from several angles).

Give us the gist when you've read it, and I'll try and get my mitts on it in the meantime to make up my own mind.

[Charlie Reams]

This was worth the read, I'd say. Seems pretty convincing to me, although as I don't read the Daily Express I'm sadly out of the loop on a lot of the other facts. Still, I'm puzzled by his suggested alternate version of events at the end, because if she died in a completely innocent accident then why cover it up?

[Jon Corby]

This was worth the read, I'd say. Seems pretty convincing to me, although as I don't read the Daily Express I'm sadly out of the loop on a lot of the other facts. Still, I'm puzzled by his suggested alternate version of events at the end, because if she died in a completely innocent accident then why cover it up?

I don't know. I mean, you could say that their lifestyle since is preferable to what they would have suffered if found guilty of death by neglect in Portugal, but that's pretty cynical even for me, especially as in the event of an accident they'd be making all these decisions in a very short space of time in a very abnormal frame of mind. Then you need to get all the friends involved too, and what's their incentive? Surely if the whole group is being played by them as well for an alibi, at least one of them would have spoken out about this? I genuinely don't know.

But I remember watching the news break that night, and seeing the McCanns explain that their daughter had been abducted. Later when the facts of the door being unlocked (apparently, according to one of their group, so that Maddie could get up and find them if she woke like she had done on previous nights) you just think "... so why were you on English TV within hours? Why weren't you combing the immediate area yourselves, carrying out a thoroughly intensive localised search, in case she had wandered out herself? Why on earth would Kate run back to the bar saying "they've taken her" leaving the other two children behind, when she could have raised the alarm from the apartment? I could write pages on all their other suspicious behaviour (which does extend to their friends and even others like Clarence Mitchell) but it's all readily available elsewhere, and I can't really make a sensible conclusion of it all anyway

[Charlie Reams]

I don't know. I mean, you could say that their lifestyle since is preferable to what they would have suffered if found guilty of death by neglect in Portugal, but that's pretty cynical even for me, especially as in the event of an accident they'd be making all these decisions in a very short space of time in a very abnormal frame of mind. Then you need to get all the friends involved too, and what's their incentive? Surely if the whole group is being played by them as well for an alibi, at least one of them would have spoken out about this? I genuinely don't know.

They could have concealed the negligence though, claiming the whole house was locked up and the kids asleep, only one of them went to the bar (they need the friends' collusion anyway), and so on... Not easy, but surely easier than everything else they're supposed to have done. I dunno, it makes no sense to me. I'm hesitant to call any of their behaviour suspicious because I have no idea how a family who genuinely experience something like that would react. But some people might say that it sounds very much like Maddie died in the apartment and Gerald McCann disposed of the body, for some reason, and in such a way that it's never been found (which is quite hard these days, I imagine). Don't think it'll ever be solved now, though.

Edit: Don't fancy being sued for £1M myself...

[Jon Corby]

They could have concealed the negligence though, claiming the whole house was locked up and the kids asleep, only one of them went to the bar (they need the friends' collusion anyway), and so on... Not easy, but surely easier than everything else they're supposed to have done.

True - so then if the negligence is the cover story, what is it covering up (we're into conspiracy theory realm now though, I don't really want that answered)

I dunno, it makes no sense to me. I'm hesitant to call any of their behaviour suspicious because I have no idea how a family who genuinely experience something like that would react.

Yeah you can't be sure, but I'm 99.9999% certain that I would call the police and follow their expert advice to the letter, and assist in any way I could, which at the very least means answering their questions and participating in a reconstruction. It seems unlikely that I would invent my own hypothesis, peddle it relentlessly, and make a highly profitable brand out of my missing child, leak the details of her abnormal eye (calling it a 'good marketing ploy') despite being told it could be 'signing her death warrant', etc etc

John McCann disposed of the body

Wow, that's the first time I've seen that accusation. I know it's HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS that Gerry's brother John should, despite having his own young family, quit his job as a well-paid pharmaceutical rep in order to be paid out of the Madeleine fund (couldn't she be found any day?) but I don't think he was in Portugal at the time...

[Charlie Reams]

John McCann disposed of the body

Wow, that's the first time I've seen that accusation. I know it's HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS that Gerry's brother John should, despite having his own young family, quit his job as a well-paid pharmaceutical rep in order to be paid out of the Madeleine fund (couldn't she be found any day?) but I don't think he was in Portugal at the time...

You must've quoted that amazingly quickly, I edited it about 30 seconds after I posted it. I didn't know that John was his brother's name, I just misremembered the name completely.

[David Williams]

We don't know.

[Jon Corby]

We don't know.

...is a far more tenable stance than "the child was abducted and is still alive, and I'll sue anyone that suggests anything different, even if it is more probable given the available evidence".

[David Williams]

We don't know.

...is a far more tenable stance than "the child was abducted and is still alive, and I'll sue anyone that suggests anything different, even if it is more probable given the available evidence".

But they do know.

[Marc Meakin]

We don't know.

...is a far more tenable stance than "the child was abducted and is still alive, and I'll sue anyone that suggests anything different, even if it is more probable given the available evidence".

But they do know.

But do they know?
And what do they know?

[Jon Corby]

But they do know.

But do they know?
And what do they know?

They know nothing of the sort, unless they're withholding that information. Even if we take their story utterly at face value, the only thing they know is that she wasn't in bed when they returned. That's it.

More importantly, why wouldn't they tell the police what they know?

[David Williams]

But they do know.

But do they know?
And what do they know?

They know nothing of the sort, unless they're withholding that information. Even if we take their story utterly at face value, the only thing they know is that she wasn't in bed when they returned. That's it.

More importantly, why wouldn't they tell the police what they know?

My point was that they know if they are innocent or guilty of anything. If they don't respond, some people might take that as an admission of guilt.

[Jon Corby]

My point was that they know if they are innocent or guilty of anything. If they don't respond, some people might take that as an admission of guilt.

Ah, I see now. I misinterpreted your "But they do know" then. I'm assuming your "don't respond" is in reference to Amaral's claims, rather than the police questions I linked to above too

[David Williams]

My point was that they know if they are innocent or guilty of anything. If they don't respond, some people might take that as an admission of guilt.

Ah, I see now. I misinterpreted your "But they do know" then. I'm assuming your "don't respond" is in reference to Amaral's claims, rather than the police questions I linked to above too

Yes.

[David Roe]

My sister (living in Portugal at the time) and cleaner (Portuguese) have both read it and are absolutely convinced of their guilt. I'll have to ask her for a copy - she did give me quite a detailed synopsis but, if truth be told, I'd had rather a few on board and it was late...
The situation seemed to be that they were all swingers away for a swinging holiday and all of them drugged their children to make sure they didn't wake up; they just accidentally overdosed Maddie.
I'd have to admit having trouble with this: I think the amount of collusion required between the group for that many people who stand to lose everything would be too much to ask.
Anyway, she did direct me to these websites for more information.

My problem with the "accidental overdose" theory is that you need a huge amount of sleeping pills to kill that fast. People take 20 times the dose, get found within the hour, rushed to hospital, and survive. I don't see any scenario where a doctor could give enough pills to kill a child beyond all hope of resuscitation, especially as having found the body they then have to devise (from scratch) and put into operation a foolproof plan for disposing of it.

If it was Agatha Christie, I could believe in deliberate murder. Not in real life, though. I can't believe in accidental death unless it involved Madeline wandering off on her own and falling into a fast flowing river and/or sewer.

[Lesley Hines]

My sister (living in Portugal at the time) and cleaner (Portuguese) have both read it and are absolutely convinced of their guilt. I'll have to ask her for a copy - she did give me quite a detailed synopsis but, if truth be told, I'd had rather a few on board and it was late...
The situation seemed to be that they were all swingers away for a swinging holiday and all of them drugged their children to make sure they didn't wake up; they just accidentally overdosed Maddie.
I'd have to admit having trouble with this: I think the amount of collusion required between the group for that many people who stand to lose everything would be too much to ask.
Anyway, she did direct me to these websites for more information.

My problem with the "accidental overdose" theory is that you need a huge amount of sleeping pills to kill that fast. People take 20 times the dose, get found within the hour, rushed to hospital, and survive. I don't see any scenario where a doctor could give enough pills to kill a child beyond all hope of resuscitation, especially as having found the body they then have to devise (from scratch) and put into operation a foolproof plan for disposing of it.

If it was Agatha Christie, I could believe in deliberate murder. Not in real life, though. I can't believe in accidental death unless it involved Madeline wandering off on her own and falling into a fast flowing river and/or sewer.

I quite agree, and it would be easy to check in things like hair samples, from the twins as well as things like her hairbrush. They found evidence Shannon Matthews had been receiving all sorts of meds in her hair, and my own hairdresser laughs at my hair when I take different drugs. It often changes colour!

Quite right though on all the above - I can't see how it could be right either.

[Jon Corby]

I quite agree, and it would be easy to check in things like hair samples, from the twins as well as things like her hairbrush. They found evidence Shannon Matthews had been receiving all sorts of meds in her hair, and my own hairdresser laughs at my hair when I take different drugs. It often changes colour!

Quite right though on all the above - I can't see how it could be right either.

Just thought I'd mention it here that the injunction against the book has been lifted. You may not have seen this, since it clearly isn't the big news that it was when it banned in the first place. I'm appalled by the UK media's coverage of this whole saga.

(Oh, and btw they blocked the twins being tested for sedatives. Then they got their hair cut nice and short (even crowing about it on their bizarre blog) and did their own tests. As any of us no doubt would.)