I think there are 2 things about this case that strongly point to the parents covering something up.
First is that both the police dogs (one trained in the scent of cadavers, one in blood) gave positive results in the children’s bedroom, the living room, and the McCann’s rental car. The car is an anomaly considering it was only hired weeks after the event but this could be explained away by them hiding evidence and using the boot of the car to dispose of it at a convenient time.
It’s also worth noting that Gerry McCann insists that the dogs are wrong. That’s an extremely bold statement to make and not one I think he could back up with any evidence of past performance by these or any other trained sniffer dogs used by the Met. Besides, whose to say a potential abductor didn’t accidentally kill her and leave these scent markings? This is a typical example of strange behaviour from the McCanns that leads to my second point……
They have done a remarkable job of hindering the investigation on many occasions. If you look at the movement of money surrounding the Madeleine fund things get even weirder. The private investigators they hired are primarily commercial fraud investigators, not missing persons investigators, and Gerry forced the decision through with his lawyer against the directors of the madeleine fund. It’s also worth noting that by calling the money "Madeleine’s Fund" under UK law they can use the money for anything they want. If you were searching for your child wouldn’t you have insisted the money was labelled "The Search for Madeleine Fund" which would 100% guarantee the money was used for that purpose?
There are literally books-worth of things to investigate surrounding this case, I wasn’t exaggerating when I said it’s well worth a look for those who like looking into this stuff, and unfortunately the parents look worse and worse the more you find out.
That said, one thing that makes this all so intriguing is that after all that I still only just sit on the side of believing their guilt. So much potential evidence is circumstantial, but then again so much of what they say happened has been proven wrong.

Images of a man sought in the Mccanns diasapearance

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 … &gt1=43001

The cornerstone of this case is the alleged kidnapping would have never happened had the parents not drugged the kids and left them alone. Near impossible to overcome that and not hold them responsible to some degree.

The old decoy trick for the now fourth time? Pshaw.

Something about the Met’s handling of this new investigation is disturbing me. Back in 2007 an English family were walking home from a bar in the town when they crossed paths with a man carrying a small girl. When the family returned to the UK they saw the McCanns plastered all over the news and the family immediately contacted the police to say that it was Gerry McCann they saw carrying a girl at the very time Madeleine is said to have disappeared.
6 years on and the Met are now not only claiming that the sighting of a man is new, but are completely ignoring the fact that a witness who was fresh at the time of the incident insists that the man he saw was Gerry McCann! Yet this fact is brushed under the carpet. Even the description of the man matches Gerry, although the e-fit they released is not very close. What’s interesting is the e-fit is different enough to be sure that the man they’ve drawn is not the man the witnesses say was Gerry so there’s definitely no accidental mix up going on.
It’s almost as if the British police are doing everything they can to discredit the Portuguese investigation at the expense of finding the truth. It had its problems but it certainly looks like they did all they were equipped to deal with in the early days (not all countries are lucky enough to have the resources and experience of UK/US police).

Just a gut feeling I’ve always had, but I don’t think the McCanns had anything at all to do with their daughter’s disappearance – poor parenting, yes, but that’s about all.

Just a gut feeling I’ve always had, but I don’t think the McCanns had anything at all to do with their daughter’s disappearance – poor parenting, yes, but that’s about all.

I concur.
And if you accidentally managed to kill(?) your daughter, manage to mislead the immediate enquiry and then get away with later hiding her body(?) would it then be your next action to constantly court media attention? Ummm….

Just a gut feeling I’ve always had, but I don’t think the McCanns had anything at all to do with their daughter’s disappearance – poor parenting, yes, but that’s about all.

I concur.
And if you accidentally managed to kill(?) your daughter, manage to mislead the immediate enquiry and then get away with later hiding her body(?) would it then be your next action to constantly court media attention? Ummm….

Obviously to divert attention to newly created fictional suspects and continue to receive money to spend chasing aforementioned suspects giving the appearance of devoted parents.

Victor, you’ve just posted the only sensible retort, yes. Except I don’t think I’d do that, no. I think I’d keep schtum and out of the limelight.
I’d be a very boring murderer.

I think I’d keep schtum and out of the limelight.

The McCanns’ courting of the UK press has been interesting due to the effort and calculation they’ve gone through to direct the public in certain directions. This has been largely aided by their appointment of Clarence Mitchell as press officer for the family, who is basically a Max Clifford type with good enough contacts to manipulate certain headlines.
One interesting example of this is the lie detector test debacle. It was suggested to the McCanns that they take lie detector tests to prove their innocence – they of course agreed to do so and made sure the tabloids were full of the story. A few weeks go by and they then decide to refuse taking the tests but this time their press officer ensures that the story is kept low key. Result – everyone thinks they agreed to take a test so they must be innocent.
My personal opinion is that Madeleine died accidentally in the apartment and they covered it up in a panic because they thought they might lose custody of their other 2 kids. It is extremely unlikely that any of their friends are in on it, which then leaves the question as to why so many of their stories have big holes or outright lies in them. This would be easily explained if the rumours are true that some partner-swapping was going on – a swift agreement between everyone to try and save reputations snowballs out of control and suddenly stories aren’t holding up but no one wants to be the one who cracked and admits to a bit of swinging. It might also explain the extremely suspicious mobile phone activity that both Gerry and Kate deleted for the whole evening of the crime. They may have even admitted this to the Met which is why it’s not being pursued
My faith in anything I’ve read online about this crime has been dented by the Met’s behaviour in the last week. The fact they are doing things that seem illogical suggest that they are either in on the conspiracy (ridiculously low probability) , or the evidence we have been presented with so far is incomplete or incorrect (incorrect information on the internet? never).

Victor, you’ve just posted the only sensible retort, yes. Except I don’t think I’d do that, no. I think I’d keep schtum and out of the limelight.
I’d be a very boring murderer.

Thanks. And having selectively answered 49 questions related to her/their "missing" daughter, highly raised suspicions of themselves, etc.. there is a legal concept called "admission by silence" which probably called for new fictional suspects to be created and chased.

"In People v. Cihak, 169 Ill. App. 3d 606 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988), the court observed that “to qualify as an admission by silence or an implied admission, it is essential that the accused heard the incriminating statement and that it was made under circumstances which allowed an opportunity for the accused to reply, and where a man similarly situated would ordinarily have denied the accusation”. http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/admission-by-silence/

Victor – ah, thanks be, we have no such concept over here.
James – they’re swingers too? Cor blimey.
Y’know, saying you’ll undertake a lie-detector test and then not doing so might be a good way to stay in the public eye, come to think of it.

Suspect in the Mccann disaperance died four years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/0 … 03982.html

Police want to arrest three men who were burglars and used their phones around the time of the disappearance.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/uk-po … pearance-1

Police want to arrest three men who were burglars and used their phones around the time of the disappearance.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/uk-po … pearance-1

Thanks jay st!
Wouldn’t you think they’d arrest the 3 guys before broadcasting it. Sure hope Madeline is safe & goes home soon!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/madel … al-n145091