1.The timeline of the night which was completely inconsistent!along with the friend that walked along the pathway but saw neither Gerry or his friend&vice versa
2.The friend who saw a man carrying what looked like a bundle, then a child, then a girl in pink pyjamas, then Maddy
3.The blood from Maddy in their apartment "could" have been from the convenient nose bleed she may or may not have had that the parents neglected to mention when the issue of blood found was first brought up.
4.The dna in the rent car 25 days AFTER maddie was "abducted" (coincidence that maybe they hired the same car that the "abducter" used?)
5.Gerry's blog - when Gerry stated that he&Kate "quickly realised" that much of what was said in the media was nothing more than speculation (if you're innocent,surely this would be assumed?)
6.The smell of a corpse on Kate's clothes
7.The fact that instead of saying "abducted", Kate&Gerry are suddenly saying "disappearance"
what else am I forgetting?!!
2007-09-09 21:28:02 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Woah Saturn, what a logical and well thought out argument...btw, it's 10am, shouldn't you be in school?
Celtmaidn, Not sure how their law works but from what I understand, they were allowed leave as in Portugal there are no bail conditions or rules regarding staying put. Seems quite stupid to me....
2007-09-09 21:56:26 · update #1
Saturn, it's not that hard to remember that my name is grumples not "crumples"....alhtough, I guess some people have more difficulty with the alphabet than others. Don't worry, you will pick it up....eventually
2007-09-09 22:20:21 · update #2
typo *although
2007-09-09 22:20:55 · update #3
freethinker, not only did Saturn offend me (for no reason at all, which IMO, is a lot more immature than you seem to think I am!!) he also neglected to make a half decent point but merely insisted that "innocent until proven guilty" is the only sentence we should be listening to. At least I make an argument when expressing my opinion. I don't just shove sayings down peoples throats...and then insult them for no reason.
2007-09-09 22:24:35 · update #4
Very Witty Sean w...do you always copy other people or are you just doing it today?
2007-09-09 23:40:30 · update #5
Yes I can say Innocent until proven guilty, and it's something I'll always believe. Why did you have to be vicious to Saturn? You made a remark I'd expect from a very young girl, not an adult.
2007-09-09 22:09:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
"Innocent until proven guilty" means that you have to produce evidence that convinces a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" of the person's guilt. It means that you can't be locked up (not yet, anyway) unless there is credible evidence against you. I said, CREDIBLE evidence. If your list is all you have, you should try a little harder.
1- when several people give their accounts of events, there will always be discrepancies. This can happen without there being any sinister explanation. We are not in a position to judge this so it is irresponsible to do so.
2- One can see something and only later consider the possibilities of what it might actually have been. It has not, to my knowledge, been positively ruled out that the "bundle" was Madeleine.
3- In times of stress, memories are not perfect. (mine is not even when I'm not stressed). Failing to remember something like that might be suspicious but it is not conclusive.
4- We don't know exactly what has been found in the rental car and the nature of the material could be highly significant when it comes to considering how Madeleine's DNA (if that is what it is) came to be in a car not hired until over 3 weeks after she vanished.
5- Do Gerry & Kate McCann know exactly what sources the media use other than them? Not sure what your point is here?
6- Source? Again, when we don't know exactly (and we don't) what evidence has been found, it is pointless to speculate.
7- Madeleine disappeared and remains missing. Her parents deny involvement in her disappearance and possible death. If they are telling the truth then someone else is responsible for Madeleine being missing - that person would be either a murderer or an abuctor. Simple.
There is NEVER any excuse for abandoning "innocent until proven guilty".
2007-09-10 06:44:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
The reason somebody remains innocent until proven guilty is to prevent wrongful conviction of an innocent person or persons.
I don't believe sufficient information has been released to the public that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that any suspect is guilty.
If any suspect could be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty, I think it's likely that somebody would have been charged.
Your mistake is to have become one of the jury in a trial by media case.
The things you've quoted don't even prove that a murder has been commited. If you can't prove a crime has been commited, you can't prove somebody guilty.
It is important to be sure to charge and convict the right person or the guilty person will be left free to offend against other children.
It's better to be patient, calm and rational rather than reaction to media sensationalism. The media info is just leaked rumour, not fact.
2007-09-10 06:43:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Another little item is this is all taking place in a Mediterranean country. They were not in the United States. That they are under suspicion, and allowed to leave the country, baffles me. But I know nothing of the judicial system there. Here in the USA, they would find a way to make them stay put, or would have arrested them.
Did I hear correctly that they were in fact allowed to leave? I don't get to watch the news too often, so I don't know positively.
2007-09-10 04:49:26 · answer #4 · answered by celtmaidn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe I've just been 'taken in' by the McCanns, and hate to think they might actually have had a hand in Madeleine's disappearance. Would like to know more about the supposedly intercepted phone calls and e-mails.
Guess my biggest reason for thinking them innocent is how could they have hidden her body so quickly and thoroughly when they were tourists, without a vehicle, and not in any position to plan carefully. Do you really believe they could have hidden her body, then moved it more than three weeks later? That is too gruesome to consider! I hope...
2007-09-10 05:31:05 · answer #5 · answered by Sukara 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Mccanns are still suspects until proven guilty by the police. We will wait for the results as Portuguese and UK Police with the help of some experts are working on this case through some evedince found recently.
2007-09-10 04:41:00 · answer #6 · answered by dodge 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes I can. It is part of our human rights - yours too and don't forget it.
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the Right to a fair trial, item (2) of Article 6 states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." That is not up for grabs and the McCanns have not even been charged with anything.
You are not the judge and jury here.
2007-09-10 05:04:35 · answer #7 · answered by Skidoo 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You're forgetting, Grumples, that all the 7 points cited above by you are based on nothing but HEARSAY.
Only the police & those involved in the investigation know for certain the details pertaining to the DNA in the car & the smell on Kate's clothes.
IF there was conclusive evidence regarding this against Kate, d'yu think Kate would be home just now???
Your references to Gerry's blog & the use of the word "disappearance" are nothing but long shots in the dark...
2007-09-10 04:43:50 · answer #8 · answered by Faith 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Hi Grumples, I AM sure that they are guilty of neglecting their babies. I am pretty sure they are guilty of obstructing a police enquiry: I am pretty sure they are guilty of attempting to pervert the cause of justice. Murder, I still have a problem with. I am not convinced that the police have enough conclusive evidence at this point and that they are still trying to find more facts. It is not looking good for the McCanns, but I think there is a LOT more to come out.
2007-09-10 04:37:30 · answer #9 · answered by Van der Elst 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
to now call the parents suspects, is to deflect attention from the lovely holiday destination of portugal, if the parents did it, then wouldnt that make portugal such a safe place to take your children,heavens above, they could not allow us brits think a child could be kidnapped from their country! think of all that lovely money we bring in to the country. Yes, innocent til proven guilty, thank goodness!
2007-09-10 05:06:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋