Horror Story

[leVieux]

>
A horror recalled:

Years back, we were vacationing across in Seville, Spain, when the news of the little Madeline McCann kidnapping came from nearby Portugal.

We were getting information from "Sky News" (NewsCorp's Euro version of FoxNEWS), and CNN, plus the local Spanish TV.

The story was so sad and terrifying. I won't go into details here, as it was detailed in everyone's news and following specials.

But the very WORST was hearing of the Portuguese Police's senseless persecution of the child's Mother.

Both parents were British Physicians, "on holiday" and had left Madeline asleep in their suite to join their party for outdoor supper. Mom sat where she could see Madeline's door, and went to physically go to check every 15 or 20 minutes.

The initial search showed no trace of the missing toddler, but did turn-up a reliable eye-witness who saw an unknown man carrying a little girl off.

Yet the Police continued to try to frame the innocent Mom for the disappearance.

What a horrible thought: One's baby is missing, gone; and the cops blame you! Of course, Mom was double distraught, and rightfully so.

We resolved then to never set foot in Portugal, and to never buy any product from there. The horrible way they treated that Mom was unprecedented and uncalled-for!

Little Madeline was never found, who knows ?

What a sad, sad story. . . . . .

leVieux
.

 

[skfullgun]

I remember watching a program/documentary possibly 60 Minutes, which reported on that sad event.

 

[justmax]

I remember that story as well.

There was also the story out of Australia about a missing baby. "A dingo stole my baby" often came with a laugh as the police dismissed that possibility and persecuted the parents. Years later, remains were found in the same area that were obviously an animal kill. Years after that, DNA identified the remains of the missing child. If I recall, by then the mother had passed away never knowing the outcome.

 

[Glenn B]

Little Madeline was never found, who knows ?

Well it could be she was unduly persecuted by the police, then again maybe not. So "who knows" is right. Maybe the mother was involved in some manner. That will not be answered decisively until the case is solved and the offender(s) are convicted or maybe until someone confesses.

 

[popper]

When in Germany I was told to not get near or talk to kids. Pedophiles from Brussels were kidnaping the kids and as a non-German I would immediately be suspect.

 

[Jarine88]

Her story is a multi-part documentary on Netflix.

“The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann”

Watch The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann | Netflix Official Site

The documentary takes a detailed look at the disappearance of 3-year-old Madeleine McCann, who vanished while on holiday with her family.

www.netflix.com

 

[skfullgun]

I remember that story as well.

There was also the story out of Australia about a missing baby. "A dingo stole my baby" often came with a laugh as the police dismissed that possibility and persecuted the parents. Years later, remains were found in the same area that were obviously an animal kill. Years after that, DNA identified the remains of the missing child. If I recall, by then the mother had passed away never knowing the outcome.

Yes, and as inappropriate as it seems now, I do recall that phrase, "a dingo ate my baby", being spoofed on late night comedy shows and SNL.

 

[Texasjack]

When there is no clear suspect, the people closest to the victim are always prime suspects. This was a very strange case, and still remains unsolved. In some ways it reminds me of the JonBenet Ramsey case, and I'm flat out convinced that those parents either knew the truth or were part of the murder.

There certainly are children kidnapped in this country, but the vast majority of the time it's done by a relative. That's where I'd look first.

 

[cbp210]

When in Germany I was told to not get near or talk to kids. Pedophiles from Brussels were kidnaping the kids and as a non-German I would immediately be suspect.

I think they were warning you about the gypsy kids. We got that same warning when I was in Italy. They are big time thieves and will run faster than a cheetah.

 

[Axxe55]

When there is no clear suspect, the people closest to the victim are always prime suspects. This was a very strange case, and still remains unsolved. In some ways it reminds me of the JonBenet Ramsey case, and I'm flat out convinced that those parents either knew the truth or were part of the murder.

There certainly are children kidnapped in this country, but the vast majority of the time it's done by a relative. That's where I'd look first.

My thoughts are the brother was involved and the parents were protecting him. Hence the reason they got a lawyer so quickly and refused to be questioned or interviewed by police.

I'm thinking everyone involved will end up going to their graves with the secrets to what really happened to her.

 

[dennisz]

I’ve traveled all over the world, Portugal is the only place I didn’t feel safe walking around alone.

 

[cbp210]

I’ve traveled all over the world, Portugal is the only place I didn’t feel safe walking around alone.

I felt the same way in certain parts of Paris. Some places there will make Houston Fifth ward seem like a playground.

 

[General Zod]

Consider also the case of Amanda Knox. Finds her roommate murdered and the Italian police immediately decide that not only is she the murderer, but she was involved in some kinky sex triangle of their invention with some guy she barely knew. The Italian authorities were so fixated on convicting an American for the crime (and basking in the publicity it brought) they ignored other evidence and refused to do any actual investigative work that didn't involve framing her. Evidence was suppressed if it didn't point to her. Completely unprofessional, and unfortunately she spent some time in prison before being exonerated.

 

[leVieux]

Well it could be she was unduly persecuted by the police, then again maybe not. So "who knows" is right. Maybe the mother was involved in some manner. That will not be answered decisively until the case is solved and the offender(s) are convicted or maybe until someone confesses.

We were just across the border, my wife is Spanish-fluent. A "reliable" but un-named WITNESS popped-up early to testify that he SAW an unknown man carrying a little girl off ! It was in our Spanish news back then.

That is "WHY" !

leVieux
.

 

[Axxe55]

Police cover-up is why the case hasn't been solved.

s/.

 

[Glenn B]

We were just across the border, my wife is Spanish-fluent. A "reliable" but un-named WITNESS popped-up early to testify that he SAW an unknown man carrying a little girl off ! It was in our Spanish news back then.

That is "WHY" !

leVieux
.

Such a statement, from the unnamed reliable eyewitness does not mean the mother was uninvolved. The fact is eyewitness testimony is often considered among the worst type of evidence admitted in trial proceedings; at least according to the prosecutors, defense attorneys with whom I worked during my 32 year career in LE; it is also the belief of many Forensic Psychologists. I am not saying whoever was that witness was wrong, just stating a fact as I know it about eyewitness testimony. Here are a couple of snippets, with links to their sources, that may be of interest about the reliability of eyewitness testimony (you can find many others):

Juries tend to pay close attention to eyewitness testimony and generally find it a reliable source of information. However, research into this area has found that eyewitness testimony can be affected by many psychological factors:... (source)

New York-based The Innocence Project, who work to overturn cases of wrongful conviction in the United States, report that eyewitness misidentification plays a role in about 75% of wrongful convictions overturned through DNA testing in the United States. (source)

There are numerous cases you can find in which eyewitness testimony got someone wrongfully convicted who was later found innocent because of DNA or some other form of physical evidence presented to the courts that proved them innocent. What most folks, who are not involved in either side of criminal proceedings but may be involved as jurors, believe is that eyewitness testimony is usually accurate and is reliable. They are wrong about that all to often. Thus eyewitness testimony is often considered the weakest evidence that can be presented and such evidence should be heavily scrutinized by law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. Sadly, it is all to often that LE and prosecutors depend upon eyewitness testimony as being the end all be all of all types of evidence in a prosecution.

Relative to this case and who was suspected, many times in crimes involving the disappearance of a child, it is one or both of the parents involved - some even sell their children to sexual predators. I am not saying the police were right or wrong in how they handled it but that their focus on the parents is what was to be expected until the parents were ruled out as suspects. That regardless of any so called reliable eyewitness testimony at that early stage of the investigation that somehow makes you believe only one person was involved. Of course, along with looking at the parents, the police should also have been focusing on other suspects and all evidence as well including the statements of eyewitnesses. It is quite possible, likely even probable as we know it now, that an eyewitness in this particular case actually did see a man carrying a child away and that likely was Madeline McCann. That does not, especially at the early stages of an investigation, rule out the parents as suspects. How the police went about the early stages is another thing. If they were incompetent at getting it done properly - and if what I have read about their investigation and their actions or inaction relevant to it are true - then it seems they were incompetent. That is not only a shame but should have resulted in disciplinary action against them, again if the accounts of their ineptness are true. Still though, none of that rules out the parents as suspects early on. In fact, the authorities may still hold the parents or one of them in suspicion today although due to media coverage and public opinion, as well as political pressure, would not likely admit such again until such time that they might obtain substantial proof of such.

Until the responsible person(s) for her disappearance is/are convicted or posthumously are proven guilty we will not know one way or the other.

 

[mongoose]

Such a statement, from the unnamed reliable eyewitness does not mean the mother was uninvolved. The fact is eyewitness testimony is often considered among the worst type of evidence admitted in trial proceedings; at least according to the prosecutors, defense attorneys with whom I worked during my 32 year career in LE; it is also the belief of many Forensic Psychologists. I am not saying whoever was that witness was wrong, just stating a fact as I know it about eyewitness testimony. Here are a couple of snippets, with links to their sources, that may be of interest about the reliability of eyewitness testimony (you can find many others):





There are numerous cases you can find in which eyewitness testimony got someone wrongfully convicted who was later found innocent because of DNA or some other form of physical evidence presented to the courts that proved them innocent. What most folks, who are not involved in either side of criminal proceedings but may be involved as jurors, believe is that eyewitness testimony is usually accurate and is reliable. They are wrong about that all to often. Thus eyewitness testimony is often considered the weakest evidence that can be presented and such evidence should be heavily scrutinized by law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. Sadly, it is all to often that LE and prosecutors depend upon eyewitness testimony as being the end all be all of all types of evidence in a prosecution.

Relative to this case and who was suspected, many times in crimes involving the disappearance of a child, it is one or both of the parents involved - some even sell their children to sexual predators. I am not saying the police were right or wrong in how they handled it but that their focus on the parents is what was to be expected until the parents were ruled out as suspects. That regardless of any so called reliable eyewitness testimony at that early stage of the investigation that somehow makes you believe only one person was involved. Of course, along with looking at the parents, the police should also have been focusing on other suspects and all evidence as well including the statements of eyewitnesses. It is quite possible, likely even probable as we know it now, that an eyewitness in this particular case actually did see a man carrying a child away and that likely was Madeline McCann. That does not, especially at the early stages of an investigation, rule out the parents as suspects. How the police went about the early stages is another thing. If they were incompetent at getting it done properly - and if what I have read about their investigation and their actions or inaction relevant to it are true - then it seems they were incompetent. That is not only a shame but should have resulted in disciplinary action against them, again if the accounts of their ineptness are true. Still though, none of that rules out the parents as suspects early on. In fact, the authorities may still hold the parents or one of them in suspicion today although due to media coverage and public opinion, as well as political pressure, would not likely admit such again until such time that they might obtain substantial proof of such.

Until the responsible person(s) for her disappearance is/are convicted or posthumously are proven guilty we will not know one way or the other.

"The fact is eyewitness testimony is often considered among the worst type of evidence admitted in trial proceedings; at least according to the prosecutors"

This is true ( unless the prosecution is using this evidence to build a case......then it is gold.)

 

[Axxe55]

Eye witness testimony is only reliable if the facts and evidence support the testimony.

Eye witness testimony can be influenced by many factors.

 

[Axxe55]

Such a statement, from the unnamed reliable eyewitness does not mean the mother was uninvolved. The fact is eyewitness testimony is often considered among the worst type of evidence admitted in trial proceedings; at least according to the prosecutors, defense attorneys with whom I worked during my 32 year career in LE; it is also the belief of many Forensic Psychologists. I am not saying whoever was that witness was wrong, just stating a fact as I know it about eyewitness testimony. Here are a couple of snippets, with links to their sources, that may be of interest about the reliability of eyewitness testimony (you can find many others):





There are numerous cases you can find in which eyewitness testimony got someone wrongfully convicted who was later found innocent because of DNA or some other form of physical evidence presented to the courts that proved them innocent. What most folks, who are not involved in either side of criminal proceedings but may be involved as jurors, believe is that eyewitness testimony is usually accurate and is reliable. They are wrong about that all to often. Thus eyewitness testimony is often considered the weakest evidence that can be presented and such evidence should be heavily scrutinized by law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges. Sadly, it is all to often that LE and prosecutors depend upon eyewitness testimony as being the end all be all of all types of evidence in a prosecution.

Relative to this case and who was suspected, many times in crimes involving the disappearance of a child, it is one or both of the parents involved - some even sell their children to sexual predators. I am not saying the police were right or wrong in how they handled it but that their focus on the parents is what was to be expected until the parents were ruled out as suspects. That regardless of any so called reliable eyewitness testimony at that early stage of the investigation that somehow makes you believe only one person was involved. Of course, along with looking at the parents, the police should also have been focusing on other suspects and all evidence as well including the statements of eyewitnesses. It is quite possible, likely even probable as we know it now, that an eyewitness in this particular case actually did see a man carrying a child away and that likely was Madeline McCann. That does not, especially at the early stages of an investigation, rule out the parents as suspects. How the police went about the early stages is another thing. If they were incompetent at getting it done properly - and if what I have read about their investigation and their actions or inaction relevant to it are true - then it seems they were incompetent. That is not only a shame but should have resulted in disciplinary action against them, again if the accounts of their ineptness are true. Still though, none of that rules out the parents as suspects early on. In fact, the authorities may still hold the parents or one of them in suspicion today although due to media coverage and public opinion, as well as political pressure, would not likely admit such again until such time that they might obtain substantial proof of such.

Until the responsible person(s) for her disappearance is/are convicted or posthumously are proven guilty we will not know one way or the other.

As a general rule, in most cases, those closest to the victim are usually person's of interest.

 

[Glenn B]

"The fact is eyewitness testimony is often considered among the worst type of evidence admitted in trial proceedings; at least according to the prosecutors"

This is true ( unless the prosecution is using this evidence to build a case......then it is gold.)

Yes I agree, I think I essentially mentioned they often depend on it as the end all be all of their case but that is usually when they have little else to present as evidence. Even though they depend upon eyewitness testimony too much in some cases that does not necessarily mean they would not rather have physical evidence like DNA, fingerprints, blood or other physical things that bolster the case. Of course, eyewitness testimony can be among the best evidence if the eyewitness is both accurate and reliable; then it pretty much is as good as gold. The thing is proving that the witness is both accurate and reliable is not often easy unless that person has given given accurate testimony in past cases (or has a history of being able to accuratley report things he/she has seen in other types of situations) and that witness was deemed reliable because of past experience as an eyewitness or because physical evidence - in even only one case - backs up the witness' testimony.