Not buying it !.McCann developments.Wendy Murphy

[izabsmiling]

Investigators are hoping that new information will help solve the mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann.

The then- three-year-old British girl disappeared six years ago while vacationing with her family in Portugal.

Scotland Yard is planning to release a computerized sketch of a possible person of interest in the case.

Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy joined America’s News Headquarters to discuss the development.

"I’m not buying it. I think this is more PR than anything," Murphy said. "I think this is all related to a civil suit now underway in Portugal." 

The McCanns sued the former police chief for defamation because he wrote a tell-all book.

Alisyn pointed out that the McCanns claim the Portuguese police never took the case seriously

read full transcript http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/former-us-prosecutor-wendy-murphy-think.html

taken from http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/10/new-image-suspect-be-released-madeleine-mccann-case

(footage)

Wendy Murphy (former child abuse and sex crimes prosecutor, now adjunct professor and trial and appellate attorney specializing in crime victims) 

[polksaladallie]

---

@azureline** wrote:

Heartbreaking is what it is................rather than odd, imo.

Polks, I was asking a general question, not insinuating you said anything.

---

Thanks.  I had been rabbitting on about children left alone, so I thought it was directed at me.

I wish they would make it possible to make a comment here which does not have the OP's or the last poster's name attached.

[***super_nova***]

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

and how many would leave their children after their 3 yr old and 2 2 yr olds after they ask over the breakfast table why didn't you come when we cried last night ?

I can't believe that after this happened they would not change their plans.  My guess is that some parents who have always used nannies are not fully aware of the constant vigilance that is required in caring for very young children.  Doctors included.

---

Sorry, but I cannot see how 3 y.o. would ask in the morning such a question, not to mention 2 years old; little kids do not remember what happened  last night and even if they did, they would be very unlikely able to put their feeling in words.  

Anyway, I wonder how many people have their children, even newborn babies, sleeping in another room, often down the hall?  If they are heavy sleepers they would not hear them crying unless they are really screaming. 

[azureline**]

Kate McCann said her almost 4 yo asked her that question. She was 9 days short of her 4th birthday.

[polksaladallie]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

Sorry, but I cannot see how 3 y.o. would ask in the morning such a question, not to mention 2 years old; little kids do not remember what happened  last night and even if they did, they would be very unlikely able to put their feeling in words.  

Anyway, I wonder how many people have their children, even newborn babies, sleeping in another room, often down the hall?  If they are heavy sleepers they would not hear them crying unless they are really screaming. 

---

Could not disagree with you more.  Mothers, at least, are programmed to hear a baby's cry.  Many women will tell you that years after their children have grown, they wake when a neighbour's child cries in the night.

New mothers are not heavy sleepers, (and thankfully now fathers are learning to be accountable), but if they were, the baby would surely be beside them in their bedroom.

I also disagree that a nearly 4 year old who was woken and had to deal with a crying sibling would not remember and be able to articulate this.

[the_great_she_elephant]

since it hasn't gone to Court and could do in the future ...I don't know that they should be putting any theories out themselves

And yet you have never criticised  the book written by Goncarlo Amaral, and admit to being infuenced by the uninformed theory of a blogger with no connection to the case.

[cherry*135]

 Goncarlo Amaral - who was dropped from the investigation, fired from the police force and charged with perjury. A convicted criminal.

If anyone is out to make money from this (writing a book on the subject (self-published?) with his own theories), I would point the finger at him.

[izabsmiling]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

since it hasn't gone to Court and could do in the future ...I don't know that they should be putting any theories out themselves

And yet you have never criticised  the book written by Goncarlo Amaral, and admit to being infuenced by the uninformed theory of a blogger with no connection to the case.

---

I haven't read the book.I know that the Court/Law in the Country where it was written hasn't had the problems with the theories it raises and seems to acknowledge the right for the author to defend their personal and professional honour .

I don't know what to think ..if someone writes a book they should be able to accept that the  book is more than just $'s for them though shouldn't they and that readers (who the books are published for) have a right to comment on what's in these books .

If it was intended to defend ,explain things and clear things up ....it has failed IMO (if that may be allowed )

All I have said re the book Madeleine is that some things seem odd ...others seem to agree (though they have ignored that those very things they are saying unlikely when they post AT me are in that very book )

[the_great_she_elephant]

All I have said re the book Madeleine is that some things seem odd ...others seem to agree (though they have ignored that those very things they are saying unlikely when they post AT me are in that very book )

No, that is not  ALL you have said. You have stated quite explicitly that in your opinion the McCanns should not be putting forward the theory that Madeleine was abducted.

You have NEVER said that Goncalo Amaral and PatBrown should not be putting forward the  theory that the McCanns found Madeleine dead and went to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. 

If it's OK for Amaral to publish his theory  in order to "defend his reputation" then presumably the same right should be extended to the McCanns.

You may find some of what the McCanns said 'odd', most of us  here find what Brown in particular  has said illogical and downright ludicrous, and Brown is not defending anyone's reputation, simply bignoting herself and  lining her own pockets.

[the_great_she_elephant]

And, BTWI am not posting AT you. I am simply responding to what I see as flaws in you ARGUMENT - and I use that word in the academic sense:: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

[cherry*135]

I agree noone is posting AT anyone. It is perfectly acceptable in a discussion to tell another you don't agree with their view on a particular point relating to the subject (& why you don't agree)  and/or ask for more clarification of it.