Yes, and who knows where the money for the donation from the paper to the McCann’s abduction fund came from?

For all we know, a member from Team McCann could have given the money to the paper to donate back into their abduction fund.

Uhm, no…actually, that does sound right!

The fact that they are all paid money just means that the publishers’ insurance companies don’t want the hassle. Kate Moss actually litigated (which neither of the McCanns ever did), won a huge judgment and declaration that she was “not a drug addict,” but now, we know differently, don’t we?

The McCanns’ and Murat’s legal status as arguidos in Portugal has nothing to do with the lawsuit settlements obtained here. In the McCanns’ case, apparently, they never filed a lawsuit–just postured and threatened, and they received a “donation” to their “fund” in return, I would imagine, for giving up their right to litigate with the parties who paid. Those newspapers just “bought their peace.” Same with Murat, although Murat did file a lawsuit. That meant that the papers could have challenged his accusations, joined issue, and submitted proof, etc.

This is what happened with the O.J. Simpson murder case, where there was a criminal trial aquittal and a civil trial finding of guilty.

But we absolutely know the McCanns contributed to Madeleine’s disappearance by abandoning her.

Where as - if Murat isn’t guilty - then he’s got no responsibility at all.

Actually - no one’s said that it has to be true.

On the other thread we were expressing doubts about how anyone could say that Murat was in no way involved (but Chenier pointed out it was a legal requirement or technicality or something).

The McCanns apology states that they are innocent of any involvement in madeleines disappearance. That has to be untrue of course.

Strange that! Especially as all three are still official suspects in Portugal. Where it happened. Something not quite right?

Why wait? Because today, it is Murat’s turn, and over the weekend, traditionally, nothing ever happens in this case, so…Monday it is.

yes, it does make sense.

But that does not mean that this is why she did it.

To figure that out, you’d have to dig deeper, to ask whether there were any problems in her previous jobs or schooling, and then figure it out. When people fail at things, or, say, accidentally kill a patient and get sacked (or perhaps with docs it is just quietly suggested that they tackle opthamology or dermatology), they could easily say, ah well, it is fine because I didn’t like the hours required to be an anesthesiologist or an obstetrician anyway.

So we can speculate, but because we know so little about either McCanns’ personal careers (I mean, what does Gerry REALLY do, anyway?), it’s not possible to say whether their jobs or job histories had any affect or role in Madeleine’s disappearance.

It’s more than a cul de sac, I think. It is a very attractive little roundabout that could open, through a shady glen, on to the autobahn….

It’s true that if she said she was around 6 dead bodies - that’s suspicious.

But it makes sense to me that someone who was a mother would prefer to be a part-time local GP. The hours, the location and the type of pressure would be more suitable to family life (and it still has a great salary).

Why close up the cul de sac Sally has so nicely opened?

It is actually a good issue Sally raises. Why did Kate McCann so constantly change not just jobs, but careers? We can speculate about why, but it would be interesting, perhaps even enlightening, to hear Kate’s answers. Did she or Gerry ever kill a patient in their various medical careers? Did she ever give anyone–adult or child–an accidental overdoes? At the least, the changes indicate possible personal instabilities, or some other problem in the marriage, perhaps, that may have led to them killing Madeleine, accidentally or otherwise, destroying her body, scouring the apartment with bleach, etc.

If Kate has previously killed a patient or two, it would not in itself be proof that she killed Madeleine. But it raises a lot of issues. Kate herself claims to have handled, wot, FIVE corpses or so right before she went on vacation, and apparently did not wash her clothing or hair or hands in between times, so….well, M&A, Sally’s question fairly raises itself, n’est pas?

Convictions are almost impossible without a body.

Does Kate McCann have a job to switch?

Oh, you must mean the job she had handling all those dead bodies….

Imagine now, the nursemaid wakes up, the child is missing, and the servants search and search, but there is no body ever found….and the privy has been washed and wiped and bleached and bleached and bleached, and Mrs. Kent, who never sheds a tear, thereafter busies herself with weeks of endless clothes washing….

Then, after a month or two, Mr. and Mrs. Kent go off alone in a carriage through the shires, stopping at a beautiful spot on the craggy, cliffy, cavernouse coast for a pikanik, just the two of them….

gosh, what would have happened to the British sleuthing industry?

July 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Sally, maybe she just fancied a change…

————————————————————————–
Melanie, I really don’t think so.

Mods and Admin

its possible because anaethetists do become affected by the gases they use on patieints , and it can badly affect unconceived children, and its not only maternally but also paternally.

An NHS anaethetist wouldn’t earn as much as an US one anyway.

I think that cul de sac you have opened can be safely closed

Lovely daydream, wouldnt it be wonderful if those kind pj were thinking of giving us a lovely surprise to thank us for our perseverence with the case