Cranius wrote:Their celebrity is at least in some part a result of their campaign, well intentioned or otherwise, and has managed to focus the whole country's attention on them. And now people feel suspicious and tricked.

I don't feel at all suspicious or tricked by the Mccanns. I feel both regarding the media who have exposed themselves as opportunistic, hypocritical, morally vacuous shills over this than regarding any other subject i can think of.

As entertaining as this thread sometimes it is nothing but maybes.

Maybe the Mccanns and there friends were involved in some secret cult that produces, via IVF, cloned twins one of which is then sold for use in secret government sex/medical experiments and the other is raised to become the producer of society numbing bland pop music. all of which was somehow leaked to some Hollywood producer who decided to expose the crimes via a movie script to be directed by Daredevil himself.
Throw in government spin doctors, dash liberally with military organisations and former political terrorists then sprinkle a little catholic church and - hey presto - a conspiracy.

Or maybe their kid got nicked and they underestimated the opportunistic, hypocritcal and morally vacuous nature of the mainstream press.

maybe

Earwicker wrote:

Cranius wrote:Their celebrity is at least in some part a result of their campaign, well intentioned or otherwise, and has managed to focus the whole country's attention on them. And now people feel suspicious and tricked.

I don't feel at all suspicious or tricked by the Mccanns. I feel both regarding the media who have exposed themselves as opportunistic, hypocritical, morally vacuous shills over this than regarding any other subject i can think of.

But why not them? They have invited these people to act on their behalf. Really, they did that, by utilising consensus building organisations you'd usually associate with government departments.

As entertaining as this thread sometimes it is nothing but maybes.

Maybe the Mccanns and there friends were involved in some secret cult that produces, via IVF, cloned twins one of which is then sold for use in secret government sex/medical experiments and the other is raised to become the producer of society numbing bland pop music. all of which was somehow leaked to some Hollywood producer who decided to expose the crimes via a movie script to be directed by Daredevil himself.
Throw in government spin doctors, dash liberally with military organisations and former political terrorists then sprinkle a little catholic church and - hey presto - a conspiracy.

Not conspiracy, but a series of unanswered questions and very visible PR agency working behind the McCanns in order to sway the public consciousness before a trial. Let's not forget they are suspects. It is you that is invoking conspiracy in your post, not me, but that's your contrarian style of debate.

Or maybe their kid got nicked and they underestimated the opportunistic, hypocritcal and morally vacuous nature of the mainstream press.

Perhaps, they used an uninquisitive press service to help promote their version.

I'm not currently aware of any evidence for the abduction theory. Enlighten me.

Cranius wrote:But why not them? They have invited these people to act on their behalf. Really, they did that, by utilising consensus building organisations you'd usually associate with government departments.

Because all our information at the moment is coming from the very people I hold primarily responsible for this mess(presuming the innocence of the suspects that I think we're meant to). Sure the couple have tried to use the media for their advantage but the interpretation of 'their advantage' differs between - trying to find the kidnapped child and creating a smokescreen for their own crime.
At the moment either is as likely as the other but - like I said - my presumption is innocence until I hear from elsewhere than the gutter press - who, to me, are still the only real bad guys here.
(I think I was one of the first to criticise the Mccanns on here for leaving the kids alone but obviously there is a gulf of difference between that mild (?) neglect and manslaughter/murder)

Cranius wrote:

As entertaining as this thread sometimes it is nothing but maybes.

Maybe the Mccanns ...etc

It is you that is invoking conspiracy in your post, not me, but that's your contrarian style of debate.

Well, the suggestion of several couples colluding in a cover up is a little conspiratorial but I was more alluding to the posts thrown in here regarding coincidences in movies, references to political terrorists, military organisations and James Blunt. I was trying to be funny actually but the kind of conspiratorial thinking so often condemned around the forum is a very close cousin to what is happening on this thread and is being indulged in (or trod in) as far as I can see.
People are suggesting possibilities based upon unconfirmed reports from an exploitative press. Where's the difference there?

Cranius wrote:Let's not forget they are suspects.

Let's not forget they are innocent until proven otherwise.

Cranius wrote:I'm not currently aware of any evidence for the abduction theory. Enlighten me.

I have none but I'm not currently aware of any solid evidence for the alternative - other than rumour squirted out through the rags.
I suppose you could see a child being there, then not being there as suggesting an abduction - at least in the absence of a body.

To my mind the couple throwing up smoke screens (if that is what they are doing) is a possible explanation but so is the Portugese police clutching at anything (and even framing) because of the high profile nature of the case. It's not as though that's never happened before. they create their own smokescreen to cover their failure to progress in the case.
The press however loves both angles, both sets of leaks and counter leaks - all the misery and confusion.
They're wallowing in their element and I doubt whether they are even remotely interested in what the truth might be.

I hate to be sucked in by all this, but this is kind of creepy



http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/25/portugal.missing.girl.photo/index.html

Unless the woman in the photo is a giant, the girl is too small for a 4 year-old.

Alberto the Frog wrote:Unless the woman in the photo is a giant, the girl is too small for a 4 year-old.

(hysterically) "It's a giant! It's a giant!"

This is all getting a bit 'Where's Wally'...

has any explanation been presented as to why a family of Moroccan peasants would be interested in the burden of looking after a 4 year old European child???

Makes a nice pet.

fedaykin13 wrote:I hate to be sucked in by all this, but this is kind of creepy

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/25/portugal.missing.girl.photo/index.html

Is it me or does this photo have the same sort of grainy quality to it as a photoshopped UFO picture? What are the chances that we are going to see many more of these pictures (no doubt from all around the world) in the coming months I wonder?

Like the idea that the Portuguese police were trying to frame Madeleine's parents, this latest 'revelation' that Madeleine may have been kidnapped by Morrocans, is going to keep middle-Englanders 'entertainingly' racist for years.

Can't trust the Portuguese, their police aren't a patch on our good ol' English bobbies - clip round the ear when I were a lad, nipped the criminal element in the bud, not like today... Dangerous times today, stabbings, coloured folk, cats and dogs living together, what is the world coming too? Can't trust the Morrocans, they come over here and steal our jobs, now they're stealing our children too. I'm not racist but...