Netflix Madeleine McCann docco

[rasta-spouse]

It's worse than Brexit this thing.

I agree these two things are colossal fuck-ups. Brexit is a real headache, you might want to duck out of the issue, but for legal scholars and students of the political process it's going to be looked back at as one of the most explosive moments in UK history - one in which our democratic systems were truly tested.

Similarly, the McCann case is a depressing neverending shitshow, but for people with an interest in true crime something of a marvel - but it's even more than that because it involves the machinery of governments and the media distorting the course of justice. Even Theresa May's involved in it, she authorised funding for a UK police investigation while Home Secretary. It's like Bonfire of the Vanities (the book, of course) level intriguing, but real. Or you could just ignore it, yes, up to you really.

Like they are perhaps trying to cover up something in their own lives. Perhaps.

*tiptoes out of thread wearing disposable overshoes*

[Jockice]

I think JonBenet Ramsey did it myself.

[colacentral]

That irish guy who formed the CEOP seemed like a properly ahead of the curve, sound thinking dude and then at some point he was all like, na, actually now I've seen how much those kids who were like babies at the time this potential case of negligent manslaughter occured really passionately love their mum and dad so there's no way in my mind they could have done it because raising adoring kids in a loving environment and drugging them and a tragedy occuring are MUTUAL IMPOSSIBILITIES

Yeah, right donut him.

[Ambient Sheep]

I think JonBenet Ramsey did it myself.

Well yes.  That's why her brother killed her.

[St_Eddie]

And as for those who do objective research and arrive at a conclusion that they didn't do it are just wrong I take it?

Not at all.  Just as long as they've done their research and are in possession of the facts.  That being the case, then people are fully entitled to arrive at their own conclusions.  It was you who suggested that those people were "letting their imaginations run riot".  That's what I was arguing against.  I never brought the whole guilty/innocent angle into that rebuttal, so I don't know why you're implying that I did.

Similarly, the McCann case is a depressing neverending shitshow, but for people with an interest in true crime something of a marvel - but it's even more than that because it involves the machinery of governments and the media distorting the course of justice. Even Theresa May's involved in it, she authorised funding for a UK police investigation while Home Secretary. It's like Bonfire of the Vanities (the book, of course) level intriguing, but real. Or you could just ignore it, yes, up to you really.

+1

[Jockice]

Well yes.  That's why her brother killed her.

Gordon? Well he is a moron.

[Jockice]

I think it was all concocted as a gift to keyboard detectives who know absolutely fucking everything. Yet, ironically, they haven't found out.

It's only the most famous and talked-about disappearance in British history. Makes Richey Manic look like an amateur. But until someone comes up with some actual proof (ie, not just what they think happened depending on what they think of the McCann family) its just people (and I'll say this again) letting their imaginations run riot.

Incidentally, in my early reporting career, I did several stories on the disappearance on Ben Needham and met his mum and a couple of other members of his family. I can still remember some of the rumours about what had happened there and none of them have been proven yet and he's still missing. This may be part of the reason I'm so cautious about saying anyone is guilty of anything in the later case. That and the fact that it winds a certain subsection of the public up something rotten.

[St_Eddie]

...until someone comes up with some actual proof (ie, not just what they think happened depending on what they think of the McCann family) its just people (and I'll say this again) letting their imaginations run riot.

For the record, I couldn't give two figs about the social status of the McCanns when it comes to arriving at an informed conclusion on the case.  I care only about evidence.  I think that you're subconsciously projecting onto other people.  You seriously think that every person who's looked into the case and arrived at a conclusion is doing so through the biased lens of social status prejudice?

[Jockice]

For the record, I couldn't give two figs about the social status of the McCanns when it comes to arriving at an informed conclusion on the case.  I care only about evidence.  I think that you're subconsciously projecting onto other people.

Hmm. Could I possibly say something about pots and kettles here?

PS, Ben Needham's family were far from posh and yet I heard stories claiming that they were guilty too. It's just that that one happened before the internet so it was mainly word of mouth and people writing into and phoning up newspapers with their weird unprovable theories.

[St_Eddie]

Hmm. Could I possibly say something about pots and kettles here?

I don't know, could you?

[Jockice]

I don't know, could you?

Who knows? It's a mystery.

[Icehaven]

Well yes.  That's why her brother killed her.

Aha! The twins did it!

[Replies From View]

Wouldn't it be more appropriately formal to refer to this child as McGann?

Yes I know that strictly speaking that's not her surname, but if we call her McCann people won't know if we mean her or someone else in her family.


So to avoid confusion and to show respectful formality:  McGann it is.

[St_Eddie]

Wouldn't it be more appropriately formal to refer to this child as McGann?

Yes I know that strictly speaking that's not her surname, but if we call her McCann people won't know if we mean her or someone else in her family.


So to avoid confusion and to show respectful formality:  McGann it is.

I dno't thnik that yuo've thouhgt this thruogh.

It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.  On that pricnible and by extnesion, poeple are jsut as liekly to raed McGann as McCann.

[Replies From View]

Well that's fine then.  We are in agreement that we will all refer to her as McGann from now on.

[St_Eddie]

Well that's fine then.  We are in agreement that we will all refer to her as McGann from now on.

"You can expect to be hearing from my lawyer."

[Replies From View]

I knew this would happen, but Paul McGann gets to be called "Paul McGann" to distinguish him from his brothers.  There's therefore no danger of anyone thinking we are talking about him.

[Bazooka]

I knew this would happen, but Paul McGann gets to be called "Paul McGann" to distinguish him from his brothers.  There's therefore no danger of anyone thinking we are talking about him.

I refer to him as 'I' its the only way to distinguish him from his brothers.

[kalowski]

Who knows? It's a mystery.

It wouldn't be if you'd done at least 15 hours of research.

[St_Eddie]

Absolutely absurd article here.  The usual hand-waving nonsense...

He said he doesn't believe the "ridiculous" conspiracy theories circulating about Madeleine's disappearance. He said: "One of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories I have heard was that Madeleine was born as the result of a government cloning project.

Ah, nice attempt to lump in everyone who thinks that the McCanns are guilty with the batshit insane loonies, there.

He says a sexual motive is an "obvious" possibility, and Kate and Gerry remain hopeful, as there have been "other cases, where a missing child has been found alive after many years." Plus, "the complete absence of any evidence that Madeleine has been physically harmed" is the reason Madeleine could still be alive.

Regardless of how much validity one places upon them, the cadaver dogs indications are not a "complete absence of any evidence".

According to Mitchell, the McCanns were told by police to be cold and emotionless, as this would stop anyone that had taken her from getting kicks out of seeing the upset they created. He said: "One of the reasons they were so controlled was because they were told very early on that often, in the case of paedophilic kidnaps, the perpetrators watch media coverage and enjoy seeing the distress that they have caused.

"So, the police told them not to cry. Not to show any over-emotion. Kate and Gerry, both doctors and both logical, were not going to let that bastard have that satisfaction and so were very rigid."

But Mitchell understands that to your average person, this behaviour might be odd. "For someone who does not know that, they might think it looks a bit suspicious. It is almost like the public were expecting the parents to react in a certain way."

First of all, would the police ever instruct the grieving parents of a missing child not to cry when making appeals for information?  I severely doubt that they would.  Surely, they'd be much more likely to encourage them to show emotion, if anything, because they'd want to appeal to the sympathies of not only the person who abducted their child but also to anyone who may be able to provide crucial information.

Having said that, I don't think that any half competent police force would instruct them on how to emotionally express themselves, period.  Whatever one's thoughts on the case, the McCanns are potential suspects.  This was especially true in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, when the McCanns were making their appeals to the press.  It's counter-productive to any investigations, for the police to instruct them to either cry or not cry.  The term 'leading the witness' springs to mind.

Secondly, I love the notion that the McCanns are so in control of their emotions at all times, when dealing with the press.  "Our child, who we loved more than anything, has been abducted.  We are beyond devastated and now must plead for those with information to come forward but we shall remain stony faced throughout, like emotionless robots, simply because the police man told us to.  We can choose when to cry and when not to cry.  It's not a emotional response beyond our control.  We are not like most humans.  Obviously this could potentially impair our efforts to locate our missing daughter but it's far more important to us that out of spite, we don't potentially enable her kidnapper to get his jollies off".

Between this sort of claptrap and the Netflix documentary, it's clear that having lost their libel case in Portugal, once again, the McCanns are reaching out to their friends-in-high-places to spin the narrative within the media.  Shameless.

[BlodwynPig]

I bet that was written by someone who wore a Union Jack suit on hearing about the death of the Queen Mum. Emotional Patriotic "DECENCY AND PRIVILEGE ABOVE ALL ELSE" lunatic

[Jockice]

It wouldn't be if you'd done at least 15 hours of research.

That's more than I did for my PhD. That I didn't get.

[Bennett Brauer]

First of all, would the police ever instruct the grieving parents of a missing child not to cry when making appeals for information?  I severely doubt that they would.  Surely, they'd be much more likely to encourage them to show emotion, if anything, because they'd want to appeal to the sympathies of not only the person who abducted their child but also to anyone who may be able to provide crucial information.

Having said that, I don't think that any half competent police force would instruct them on how to emotionally express themselves, period.  Whatever one's thoughts on the case, the McCanns are potential suspects.  This was especially true in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, when the McCanns were making their appeals to the press.  It's counter-productive to any investigations, for the police to instruct them to either cry or not cry.  The term 'leading the witness' springs to mind.

Secondly, I love the notion that the McCanns are so in control of their emotions at all times, when dealing with the press.  "Our child, who we loved more than anything, has been abducted.  We are beyond devastated and now must plead for those with information to come forward but we shall remain stony faced throughout, like emotionless robots, simply because the police man told us to.  We can choose when to cry and when not to cry.  It's not a emotional response beyond our control.  We are not like most humans.  Obviously this could potentially impair our efforts to locate our missing daughter but it's far more important to us that out of spite, we don't potentially enable her kidnapper to get his jollies off".

I do think the lack of tearful emotion or breaking down is odd. I've also seen Kate smiling and laughing during a solo interview she did not that long after the event. Maybe that came before this alleged police instruction, but anyway, a weird response. Then there was Gerry's weird Paxman interview - he burst into a bit of strange laughter during that and came across as an egotist (if I'm not misremembering). These things don't impute guilt, but so much of what they do doesn't seem normal at all.

Between this sort of claptrap and the Netflix documentary, it's clear that having lost their libel case in Portugal, once again, the McCanns are reaching out to their friends-in-high-places to spin the narrative within the media.  Shameless.

Haven't they criticized the Netflix documentary? Are they being disingenuous?

[St_Eddie]

Haven't they criticized the Netflix documentary? Are they being disingenuous?

I don't know but now that you mention it, didn't the McCanns refuse take part in it?  I'm not up to date with such things.  I've read enough about the documentary within this thread (which is the first I heard of the documentary, incidentally) to know that it's not something I hold any interest in watching.

I'm purely speculating here but if indeed the McCanns didn't want the documentary to be made, then the recent article that I linked and its ilk could be the McCanns response to both the loss of their libel case and the Netflix documentary.  That would make sense, if they didn't have any control on how Netflix would portray the case.  Even the McCanns' friends-in-high-places have their limits on where their influence can extend to, I guess.  Ironically, the McCanns should be absolutely chuffed to bits at Netflix for ultimately blowing further smoke up their arses.

[Rolf Lundgren]

Secondly, I love the notion that the McCanns are so in control of their emotions at all times, when dealing with the press.  "Our child, who we loved more than anything, has been abducted.  We are beyond devastated and now must plead for those with information to come forward but we shall remain stony faced throughout, like emotionless robots, simply because the police man told us to.  We can choose when to cry and when not to cry.  It's not a emotional response beyond our control.  We are not like most humans.  Obviously this could potentially impair our efforts to locate our missing daughter but it's far more important to us that out of spite, we don't potentially enable her kidnapper to get his jollies off".

Too much is made about the McCanns behaviour in interviews. Being cold and robotic in interviews is very strange behaviour but it's not a clear sign of guilt. There's so many videos on YouTube with people analysing the McCann's body language and interviews to the point where they want to find guilt in every single action they do. Any example of Gerry smiling in the past ten years becomes evidence of "Duper's delight". I'm not saying there aren't interesting examples of this but rather if it's reached for every time then it waters down the case.

The video that frustrates me the most is the language analysis from Peter Hyatt which is full of so many assumptions and willfully ignores context to such a degree that it becomes worthless.

[St_Eddie]

Too much is made about the McCanns behaviour in interviews. Being cold and robotic in interviews is very strange behaviour but it's not a clear sign of guilt. There's so many videos on YouTube with people analysing the McCann's body language and interviews to the point where they want to find guilt in every single action they do. Any example of Gerry smiling in the past ten years becomes evidence of "Duper's delight". I'm not saying there aren't interesting examples of this but rather if it's reached for every time then it waters down the case.

I agree.  I didn't arrive at my guilty conclusion based upon the body language of the McCanns.  Rather, once I'd already reached that conclusion, it was interesting to note their body language as an aside.  Their body language does often seem to be incongruous with what they're saying but it's certainly not the yardstick by which one should measure their guilt or innocence.

[sponk]

Too much is made about the McCanns behaviour in interviews. Being cold and robotic in interviews is very strange behaviour but it's not a clear sign of guilt. There's so many videos on YouTube with people analysing the McCann's body language and interviews to the point where they want to find guilt in every single action they do. Any example of Gerry smiling in the past ten years becomes evidence of "Duper's delight". I'm not saying there aren't interesting examples of this but rather if it's reached for every time then it waters down the case.

The video that frustrates me the most is the language analysis from Peter Hyatt which is full of so many assumptions and willfully ignores context to such a degree that it becomes worthless.

It's really worth pointing out that when you analyse an interview, you're analysing about 8 minutes of footage probably taken from a two or three hour conversation, which has been edited to form any narrative the producers want. Every time Hyatt would say "why haven't they expressed empathy for Madeleine?" during that Richard 'was Maddy a clone? The moon landings were fake' Hall conversation, I'd just think "how do you know they haven't but the producers just haven't left it in?"

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

Couldn't we refer to her as Murderedbyparents McStiffkid ? ( one for the " deed poll" thread on H S Art, maybe ? )

[Jockice]

I bet that was written by someone who wore a Union Jack suit on hearing about the death of the Queen Mum. Emotional Patriotic "DECENCY AND PRIVILEGE ABOVE ALL ELSE" lunatic

Remember when Di was deided? And Queenie wasn't seen weeping on TV. The tabloids running stories saying: "Show us you care your majesty." Because of course tears are always a sign of sincerity. And nobody ever fakes emotion. Just ask Mick Philpott.

If I ever had to appear at one of those police press conferences I haven't the slightest idea how I'd react. But I do remember desperately trying not to burst out laughing at a funeral once (not a relative. A friend's brother) because a totally unrelated thought had came into my mind during the service. It happens.

People who don't give broadcasters the money shot of them crying during that sort of thing are always treated with suspicion. And (just a theory this) being doctors the McCanns had been trained not to show emotion when delivering bad news to patients. Or when brutally murdering their own daughter. Which they did of course. No doubt about it. Worse than Crippen and Shipman those two.

[GMTV]

They probably look guilty because they're at least guilty of something. They either feel the guilt of leaving their children alone for something like this to happen, or else guilt because they were actually involved in it somehow.