Tell you what if I was accused of a crime in a foreign country I would have a group of lawyers as well.

Their police work different to english police

 

What is this new way of thinking guilty to proven innocent, why do we always want to believe the worst of people.

People still think Lindy killed her baby even with all the evidence that she did not.

No one would disagree with that pepe................. I don't think they are amazing... well maybe a bit because I think I couldn't do what they are doing.

If that's the case ..The Daily Mail got it wrong to then Am3 ?

 

TGSE, no one need to be saying they are suspects ...just that there may be things that need clarification/answering to help solve the case.the changing time lines is strange...it would you would think put the credibilty of past witness statements at doubt ?

---

@lionrose.7 wrote:

Tell you what if I was accused of a crime in a foreign country I would have a group of lawyers as well.

Their police work different to english police

 

What is this new way of thinking guilty to proven innocent, why do we always want to believe the worst of people.

People still think Lindy killed her baby even with all the evidence that she did not.

---

If I was accused of a crime ....and I was innocent and my daughter was missing.She would come first..I would answer anything to help her..even if I was put in jail

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@*pepe wrote:

the parents are not amazing, they left their children alone.

 

its all very well for them to point the finger at the police saying they didn't investigate properly - well they didn't parent properly.

 

there would have been nothing to investigate if they had been decent parents and not left their children alone.

 

i'm not convinced they had anything to do with the disappearance, but then i'm not convinced they didn't either.

---

Yeah but you'd think the kids were pretty safe after you'd put them to bed in a hotel room while you went to dine in same hotel restaurant!

I mean, it's a fairly controlled environment.

---

controlled? the child is missing, so obviously not controlled enough.

 

a hotel is full of strangers coming and going at all hours, there is no 'ordinary' in a hotel so nobody would pay attention to anything 'out of the ordinary'.

 

leaving them alone in a hotel room is no different to leaving them alone at home - there was no adult to supervise or protect them.

 

If the McCanns are not guilty, then I can't see how the answers to those particular questions - if indeed she did refuse to answer them, which now seems doubtful, could have helped in any way to find the real culprit- - they were aimed specifically at establishing her own guilt or innocence.

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@lionrose.7 wrote:

Tell you what if I was accused of a crime in a foreign country I would have a group of lawyers as well.

Their police work different to english police

 

What is this new way of thinking guilty to proven innocent, why do we always want to believe the worst of people.

People still think Lindy killed her baby even with all the evidence that she did not.

---

If I was accused of a crime ....and I was innocent and my daughter was missing.She would come first..I would answer anything to help her..even if I was put in jail

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be sensible wouldn't it, especially if you also had twin toddlers to care for?

 

The Daily Mail got it wrong to then Am3 ?

Got it wrong/made stuff up, why not, is there a media outlet in the world that hasnt??

 

As far as I am aware, none here have had their children abducted and so cannot with real accuracy say what they would do in such a situation.

Some of the 'unanswered' questions seem innocent enough, others are clearly pointed and some still seem innocent but the answer could definitely be skewed the wrong way.

 

i'm not convinced they had anything to do with the disappearance, but then i'm not convinced they didn't either.

I agree with Pepe on this.

I agree with you Lis 

 

I started this thread as some media sources and public want to see others as subjects of arrest by British Police in relation to this case without proof and against what the British Police are reporting.Suggesting in that case that the police may know more than they are letting on and accepting that it is or may be related to the case ..that headline in the media seems to be on the say so of  a media report of what an unnamed barrister reportedly heard at some party

 

Am3, there is a submission to the Leveson Inquiry in which it says that on a date early in Sept (7th?) they became subjects of interest .At that time they were then permitted to have a Lawyer (not so with witnesses there ) .If I could ask the proffessional in the OP  who is 'Not buying it" if she was referring to that date in reference to the top defence Lawyers or right at the beginning I would to clarify things.Otherwise I can't decide and  won't post.. that her statement is true or false ?

 

 

if they were top defence lawyers ...hired straight away (by phone) .I don't know .Nor do I know if that was what she was referring to .