Maddy McCann

**endabob1** · 11/09/2007, 2:11 PM

I read this morning that people donated nearly �1M to the Maddy "fighting fund" and that the McCanns will be applying to use some of the money for their legal bills incurred over the allegations.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2426647.ece

I wonder how the fund was administered and set up in the first place. Had the people who donated envisaged that they might be funding a criminal defence case for someone (rather than the campaign to find the girl) I somehow doubt that money would have been given.

**jebus** · 11/09/2007, 2:22 PM

Don't think they'll be allowed to use the Maddy fund to finance their legal team endabob, didn't read into why they wouldn't, but an 'expert' on these matters also said today that they wouldn't legally be able to as it was solely set up as a Search for Maddy fund.

If the parents go down that road, or try to at least it will severely turn public opinion against them I feel

**endabob1** · 11/09/2007, 2:26 PM

I don't think they will either but I think it says a lot about them they are considering using it.......

**Macy** · 11/09/2007, 9:30 PM

Originally Posted by pete

Hows about reporting the facts not presenting speculation as facts?

Come on Pete, it's part of the IN&M group!

**pete** · 11/09/2007, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

Come on Pete, it's part of the IN&M group!

INvent & Makeup?

I heard a theory today about why the McCanns & their friends were in Portugal for the holiday. I believe it was mentioned in one of the Sunday papers & would be something they would not want public... Would explain the alleged syringes too...

With speculation like that I might get a job with IN&M

**Risteard** · 12/09/2007, 3:11 AM

The portugese prosecutor has applied to a judge for the immediate seizure of a single piece of evidence.

**the 12 th man** · 12/09/2007, 7:04 AM

Originally Posted by Risteard

The portugese prosecutor has applied to a judge for the immediate seizure of a single piece of evidence.

News this morning on the Radio says its a clump of the little girls hair alledgedly found in the boot of the car ?

**galwayhoop** · 12/09/2007, 8:49 AM

Originally Posted by Risteard

I was under the impression that DNA was identical before and after death.

Originally Posted by dahamsta

That statement doesn't make any sense to me either. Sounds like something from the Sun. Usually time of death is calculated by looking at the state of internal organs, and the type of bacteria and/or insects that are currently 'working' on the body. You might be able to get a very, very vague idea of the time the blood left the body via decomposition, but I very much doubt you can tell whether the person was dead or not at the time. I very much doubt DNA comes into it at any level, bar identification.

The source was on Monday evenings Last Word (iirc), apparently they could tell via the substance found if the child was dead or alive and give a (vague) assumption as to the length of time she was dead from it. From the same substance they could get the DNA. As I said I am no Bio-Chemist and can only go on the word of so-called ‘Experts’.

I was assuming that it was blood that was found but that is seemingly not the only substance it could be.

**anto1208** · 12/09/2007, 9:42 AM

They said that there was a substantial amount of hair found more than what could come from a blanket and some body fluid not blood i guess that would be saliva found in the boot of the car .

The guy on the last word last night said as well that you can tell if a person was dead when the sample was left as when you die your genetic structure changes, But as some one else raised with the media hounding them every second how could they have found time to sneak off get the body and move it with out a single paparatzi on there tail . The flight home was ment to be a secret and look at the amount of press that followed them to the airport .

Something ive allways wondered about DNA evidence they say it can prove who you are to 1 in a billion but with 6.5 billion in the world doesnt that mean that it just narrows it down to 6 or 7 people ? I know you would normally have other evidence to go with it but im sure people have been convicted on just DNA evidence .

**Magicme** · 12/09/2007, 9:51 AM

Originally Posted by baileban

The missus said it to me on day one - they looked too strong and composed on day one - if my child had gone missing I would have been a quivering wreck - far from being able to handle a worldwide media campaign.

Not defending them or anything but everyone reacts to shock & disaster in different ways. They are used to having to tell people that someone they love is dying/dead and are trained to remove themselves emotionally from situations. This training may have kicked in and then as time wore on & they realised fully it was their little girl & they were emotionally involved, then the cracks began to show.

**galwayhoop** · 12/09/2007, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by anto1208

Something ive allways wondered about DNA evidence they say it can prove who you are to 1 in a billion but with 6.5 billion in the world doesnt that mean that it just narrows it down to 6 or 7 people ?

yes but that is infinately more accurate than the previous methods relied upon like fingerprints which would only go down to 1 in millions.

a 1 in a billion shot is extremely accurate imo. 6 or 7 possible matches worldwide is massive when you consider the chances of a similar match being in the same place at that time. the 1 in a billion is a genetic possibility AFAIK but the actual chances would but far, far less

**endabob1** · 12/09/2007, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Magicme

Not defending them or anything but everyone reacts to shock & disaster in different ways. They are used to having to tell people that someone they love is dying/dead and are trained to remove themselves emotionally from situations. This training may have kicked in and then as time wore on & they realised fully it was their little girl & they were emotionally involved, then the cracks began to show.

Sorry Magicme I don't buy it, I know it's difficult to imagine someone harming their own child but it happens. There has been something not right about this whole case from the start, things don't add up and the parents actions have not helped.
That said the idea that they have somehow hidden a body and then moved it in a hire car 5/6 weeks later when they were so busy courting the worlds media also seems a little far fetched.
I just hope we get to the truth, whatever that may be.

**Magicme** · 12/09/2007, 10:37 AM

They now claim that they hid the body in the church. They didnt get a key to the church until weeks later so where was it until then?

There are so many holes in both sides of the story I just cant believe anything at the moment.

**pete** · 12/09/2007, 3:35 PM

Originally Posted by Magicme

They now claim that they hid the body in the church. They didnt get a key to the church until weeks later so where was it until then?

Who is they? I presume that is just speculation?

If you sedated a child for whatever reason & that child died you would be struck off the medical register so alongside everything else you would lose your livelihood.

To continue the speculation I would guess both parents are guilty but unless they confess or a body found will never be convicted.

**Ringo** · 12/09/2007, 3:41 PM

Originally Posted by endabob1

.
That said the idea that they have somehow hidden a body and then moved it in a hire car 5/6 weeks later when they were so busy courting the worlds media also seems a little far fetched.
I just hope we get to the truth, whatever that may be.

It could have been a friend or family member, using their car.

**Risteard** · 12/09/2007, 3:43 PM

Originally Posted by pete

To continue the speculation I would guess both parents are guilty but unless they confess or a body found will never be convicted.

Touche.
AFAIK, you need a corpse or a confession to convict.

**Hibs4Ever** · 12/09/2007, 4:05 PM

Originally Posted by Risteard

Touche.
AFAIK, you need a corpse or a confession to convict.

You obviously don't watch Forensic Detectives on Discovery Science Channel

Lots of cases have been tried and won without confession or body

**Dodge** · 12/09/2007, 4:11 PM

Originally Posted by pete

If you sedated a child for whatever reason & that child died you would be struck off the medical register so alongside everything else you would lose your livelihood.

yeah, thats the worst thing that wuold happen to them if it was proven they had killed their own child...