For a long, long time have they stopped talking about her, looking for her, crying about her. Madeleine disappeared __ full stop!

[In my view] They (McCanns, friends, Mitchell) are only interested in clearing up their names, in getting more money, in trying to intimidate the media, the Portuguese Law, thinking about new ways of getting more money from the saga they themselves have created.

Who, in the first place, created the ideal background for the accident (any kind of accident) to happen, by leaving three infants alone, night after night, in a strange hotel room abroad? Who set that enormous circus in the Algarve? Who sent for the media to come to Portugal? Who turned themselves into film stars giving intervews, travelling around the world, edit ?

Whose idea was that of using those special British dogs to help investigation? Who did not want to re-create the scene in order to clear up the doubts of the investigators? Who created that famous «fund» on behalf of the poor Madeleine? And now what are they doing? Are they griefing, looking for the missing child?

[In my view] Not anymore. They are using that Mr Mitchell, some kind of spokesman, to try to clear up their faces, to try to intimidate lawers, policemen, journalists, bookshops, newspapers, editors, trying to borrow more money from the Media, from the Portuguese State, from those who REALLY tried to work for Madeleine. We, Portuguese, are SORRY for the little girl. We, Portuguese, are tired of the tricks of people like the McCanns !

Ed:Artemis

I will await the show with great anticipation.

May God Bless them and Madeleine. We will continue praying for you here in the states.

July 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Cheryl said

________
When I said ‘one’ the right to haunt them…I was speaking of the general public spending years harrassing them and writing blogs about them, not whatever action the legal authorities may or may not take.

As for the negligence re driving, Noseycow, even over here it is an offense to hit someone from the back. I did one time and got a heavy duty fine - even tho that person stopped very quickly in front of me, I was too close to them to stop in time, which the police said and that was true - you know that old rule about so many car lengths between cars - and I was following close in traffic. No one got hurt it was rush hour traffic and very slow traffic and really no damage to their rear end but I got damage to my front bumper. The other driver and I were both surprised I got fined and only reason police knew about it was the damn cop was in traffic right behind me.
However, Noseycow, it becomes a whole different ballgame when a life is taken in cases like that. In fact, Noseycow, if through your negligence a life is taken or someone dies because you didn’t take care of them properly (example, an elderly very ill parent or spouse is dependent upon you for round the clock care and you run to the store and they fall and die while you are gone for only say 10 mins.) you get charged with that act of neglect and go to jail unless you have one fantastic lawyer to cut you a deal. Truthfully over here the McCanns would have been charged by now with neglect is my guess knowing how strict our laws are.

Last time I looked it wasn’t ILLEGAL to have a crash

Negligence is surely what leads to neglect…

He was deemed to be negligent and neglected to break in time.

Why are you so pedantic?

If you read this, have a brilliant holiday!

You bet! Made my day!!

Best quote so far…jajajajaja
Coco
Ive got an other idea: painted stones!
Some with k or g heads on,then Keela & Eddie,cuddle cat etc….wot you think?
We must not leave any stones unturned on that one….

“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know she would have screamed the place down.” says Eileen mccann,the granma

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/10/mccann-lawyers-warning-to-prosecutor.html

” We recently had a case in the UK where a man driving using a handsfree mobile phone ran into the back of a van and the susequent accident killed one of the passegers in that van.

The driver was doing NOTHING that was against the law in this country, but was found guilty of neglet and sentenced to a prison term. ”

So you want to say it’s legal to run into other people’s cars? And are you sure it was “neglect”, not “negligence”?

Maria, one cannot over look the fact they committed a serious act of neglect, even if they didn’t do it deliberately thinking it was okay with periodic checking on them, it put their children in danger and indeed it was danger — their child is missing. That is something no one will ever forget. Does not give one the right to ‘haunt’ them the rest of their lives about what they did - no need to do that to them, they will never forget what they did and will forever live with the guilt in their mind and heart

————————————————————————

Cheryl

We recently had a case in the UK where a man driving using a handsfree mobile phone ran into the back of a van and the susequent accident killed one of the passegers in that van.

The driver was doing NOTHING that was against the law in this country, but was found guilty of neglet and sentenced to a prison term.

People in the UK are responsible for their actions and even legal actions that have dire consequences, if deemed neglectful are punishable bythe law.

In UK law, no account is taken of the consequences of those actions on the person deemed to have committed the negligence.

So for example, if I drive my family somewhere following a night shift and I fall asleep at the wheel, I will be prosecuted even if a member of my family dies, or I am disabled as a result of the accident.

The police do NOT say ‘ah bless look she has to live the rest of her life with the consequences, lets not bother about the law in this case’.

So it bothers me that some people think that the McC’s are above the law BECAUSE the consequences of their actions are deemed ‘heartrendering’.

In fact it bothers me that the British Judicial System seem to be taking this stand aswell.

The law applies to all, some can not be ’selected out’ because they have their pictures in the paper on a daily basis.

Hi again.

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the link. Will chat about that again.

I’m sure you’re absolutely right about the actual blog sites (as opposed to Anorak, which, as you say, is a satirical news site!) and the venom therein but how many people actually read them, never mind believe what’s written in them? You’re right if you’re implying that the influence of such sites is a subject worthy of serious consideration, though. As they’re relatively new, the law is rarely tested with regard to any such site.

You’re also correct about the press. IMO, what appears in the regular press, or on TV, still has a greater influence on the general public. My impression from talking over the months, both in different parts of the UK , and in other countries, is that most people have pretty well “forgotten” about it all but think the Mcs are innocent of killing their child or of covering up an accidental death and disposing of the body themselves.

As you say, judgement is often harsh of the fact that they left the children asleep without adult supervision, out of earshot. (It’s equally harsh of the early police investigation though.) However, I won’t lie! I have also heard a lot of people say that they have done the same thing, or similar, in such resorts, for example, using the baby-listening service. But as I said, the fact that lots of people may do the same sort of thing NEVER makes a wrong a right.

A lot of people have said that it was wrong to have published details of M’s coloboma, it being the only thing that could not readily be disguised by a supposed abductor.

Anorakers point out that the publicity they gave to M in general was against the PJ advice. The PJ didn’t even arrange for a description to be put out; they did that themselves. I think it’s fair to remember that their friends and family moved very quickly and will have been receiving different advice from the UK police and experts, especially in the US, who insisted that widespread, repeated publicity generally has the best chance of success, eg. the Amber Alert system itself. I suppose one has to put oneself in their shoes on this one. The whole group tried to do what they could as early, as rapidly and insistently as they could. A lot of the “activity” was probably undertaken also with the idea that it was comforting to the Mcs to know how much was being done. It created a sort of hope that M would be found.

Finally, some people think they are basically innocent but that there may be things they don’t want to come out, all the same. However, the fact that their conversation with M the day before (about her and and Sean crying), whilst it naturally went against them, precisely because it showed them in such a bad light also made people think they must at least have told the truth to the police. After all, if they’d simply wanted to create a diversionary impression that someone might have been lurking round the apartment the previous night, they could have put different words into M’s mouth, eg,
“Did you hear that funny noise last night, Mummy?”
The fact that they told the police about the crying thing did make a lot of people think they’d at least been honest with the police.

Sorry if I sounded even a little bit patronising when I asked you not to take Anorak as representative of UK views. I didn’t mean to be! I know very well you have your own independent views and make up your own mind…..!! I had noticed that!! In fact, maybe I myself have allowed Anorak to influence or depress me too much! I stayed away for quite a while. When you look only at mainstream news sources, and chat casually to people, a very different view comes through. I think that’s what made me say what I did last night.

Have a good day. I am up early to go away to work today and will be busy much of the weekend.

July 11th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Would somebody tell BBC24 that some of these women newscasters are very fucking scary in a morning. Especially when I have been up all night. Thanks.

________
Hey Coco, I never said I didn’t like your name and I am sure it is a given one. We have Cocos over here also…Isn’t it more a French name — Coco Chanel or something like that?

Not half as scary as Mrs D looks first thing in the morning