H_B

You'd think, having such an incredibly stupid name, she would go to great lengths not to have it in the paper. But no. I love how the papers and even BBC Online where I got those quotes from, give her column space, when she is just a ranting madwoman.

More terrific legal analysis from Philomena McCann today as well. She really understands the intricacies of the legal process, and her knowledge is apparently easily transferred from legal system to legal system. I wonder if she fancies taking on some Amnesty International work... ""It is unbelievable they have been named as suspects, no one believes the Portuguese police. "They are assuming on spurious evidence that Madeleine is now dead. "Well, we don't agree with that in any shape or form, and we want the investigation changed round to look for Madeleine alive, as we reckon she is."

On the fund thing, I'm not sure anyone could be surprised. When I looked at the terms of the fund I said a lot earlier in this thread that I couldn't understand why anyone would contribute to it, and it was completely open to abuse, which is exactly what is happening.

Reported this morning that the Portuguese prosecutors will be studying the collated evidence over the next couple of days. Perhaps then we will find out what the authorities there do know.

Likewise. To be honest, on that board the knives have been out since the global media tour happened. They got a pasting then, so this is seen as some kind of vindication.

I agree. that does make it surprising. There was the semi-recent case though of the woman who murdered her boyfriend, and did the whole tearful plea for someone to come forward, grieving partner thing. Then it was discovered she had murdered him and hid the evidence at the hospital he was taken to. Can't remember her name now.

Well, quite, but it should be the starting point for every inquiry, and is always by far the most likely scenario, however much the "but a parent/uncle/family friend wouldn't do that" crowd don't like it. It is unfortunately a fact that parents/uncles/family friends do indeed do this. Far more regularly than random prowling abductors/killers do. All that is being said is that suspicion falling on the parents is a natural part of the inquiry, something the McCann media crew seem determined to contradict. As is said though, if there is no evidence of their involvement, then that is absolutely fine. Their complete innocence is still entirely plausible. It is unfortunate for them that the "no smoke without fire" lobby will haunt them the rest of their days, even if the DNA evidence proves to be inconclusive or patently wrong.

Well said. It is scandalous that these representatives have also been given such an easy pro-McCann ride on TV. They have been allowed to shamelessly attack the factual evidence on the Portuguese authority, purely on the basis that they personally feel it "ludicrous" that either McCann is involved. Brilliant!

Which indeed unfortunately invalidates the basic premise of that unnecessarily large multi-paragraphed post. Taking a dispassionate view of this whole affair, however it turns out in the end, it shows how easily manipulated the public are, evidenced still in this thread. For example, how many people here know exactly what the McCanns and their friends version of events that night was? I don't, and I have kept pretty up to date with this. The reason why I don't is that this was never delved into too deeply, because the McCanns and the media were controlling the nature of the press coverage. Yet this was arguably the most important element of the night.

Is it too soon to ask for the campaign fund to be used for the production costs?

Is a Scooby Doo "We'd have got away with this if it wasn't for you pesky Portuguese" ending too clicheed?

I'm thinking Gerard Depardieu for the Chief of Police. Could even use a bit of artistic license and switch it from Portugal to France - gives more scope to get Juliette Binoche or some other top French totty in supporting roles.

That would be a nice touch. If not available, Julian Beck, who played the evil guy in Poltergeist 2 would be an excellent understudy.

I'm not sure his cheeky winks at the camera will be required. There needs to be a lot of solemn self-reflective moments, before the World Tour bit. I think Dougray can handle that.

I'm thinking Dougray Scott for Gerry McCann. If he is too expensive, Dougie Henshall.

Not to worry. I think the British press (who worked the case out for themselves in a day or so) have managed to ruin his life by delving into his private life and splashing it over the front pages of their rags. Incidentally, in our film Kevin Spacey would be a good Murat. I was thinking Pete Posslethwaite initially, but he is too gimpy for the role.

The double bluff - a classic crime novel tactic! Columbo would have seen through it in an instant. Brookmyre will be along shortly to explain it to you.

On the plus side as well, potential jail term allowing, Kate is foxy enough to play her own character. If she is otherwise engaged, Jenny Agutter can step in.

How is your weekly column in The Times going?

I don't think there is any question about that. I remember the first thing I posted about this, and it concerned the grandmother's complaint on the day after the "abduction" around the fact the police weren't keeping the McCanns up to date on the progress made. This was picked up by the press and spun in a "idiot foreign police blanking concerned parents" slant and The Guardian and co got their knickers in a twist. To me, it should have been obvious why this was. The parents had to be heavily suspected, given the circumstances. Only when they had been cleared of any suspicion should they have been informed in any way about the ongoing case.

Anyone noticed the total lack of a Gerry McCann quote over the last 2 days. I would have expected him to leap to the defence immediately as soon as these allegations were made.

What a great insight from the family friend there.

Well, not really. No one ever said they did it on this thread, to my knowledge. Some people said they thought they did, which was a perfectly reasonable assumption, and one which the odds favoured. Those posters were savaged for suggesting that, which was always totally wrong. Also, no one was savaged for suggesting that the parents had no involvement. that just isn't true. That was the "popular" slant.

Just as some folk had them completely innocent, with no basis for this at all, and bridled when the very suggestion they could be involved was mentioned.