Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

AudreyHepburn

From Kate McCann's book; Chapter 13 The Tide Turns, page 201 to 202

"however unwittingly, we'd given this predator an oppertunity, We had not been there for Madeleine......our guilt over that is a heavy cross we will bear for the rest of our lives"

Kate hasn't said she killed her daughter or she is 100% responsible so I know this won't be good enough for some, but for me at least it seems like she has accepted that she and Gerry do carry a large portion of the blame and that they do feel guilty about leaving the babies that night.

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

I am suggesting that what Gaspar saw might be a variation of that game. i.e. one finger going forward and back, one moving around in a circle. And thus that it was an innocent gesture and not the sinister one she saw.

I am obviously not suggesting that one of the men was tapping his head but Gapser thought he was putting his finger in his mouth!

A bit far fetched for me to be honest

dark crystal

genericguy wrote: »

....and who initially failed to make any attempt to look for her, demolished the crime scene before calling the police, and have since spent have made countless effort to impede the investigation into her disappearance... whose response to her disappearance was to hire a team of lawyers and a PR coordinator. who refused to assist the police in their investigation and answer questions which may establish a coherent version of the events in which their child was supposedly snatched.

you meant to add those bits too, right?

No, I didn't mean to add anything else to my original post, thanks - especially information that had absolutely no connection to that post.

Still waiting for a logical explaination as to how, where and when they could have disposed of their daughter's dead body in the timeframe, though. We're 200 pages in and still no viable explaination has been offered.

deco nate

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

From Kate McCann's book; Chapter 13 The Tide Turns, page 201 to 202

"however unwittingly, we'd given this predator an oppertunity, We had not been there for Madeleine......our guilt over that is a heavy cross we will bear for the rest of our lives"

Kate hasn't said she killed her daughter or she is 100% responsible so I know this won't be good enough for some, but for me at least it seems like she has accepted that she and Gerry do carry a large portion of the blame and that they do feel guilty about leaving the babies that night.

ill say one thing for the mc's.they will make fine politicians:pac:

lugha

iamwhoiam wrote: »

A bit far fetched for me to be honest

Perhaps. But not as far fetched as the alternative, which would be that a couple of paedophiles would expose their secret to a stranger, would you not agree?

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps. But not as far fetched as the alternative, which would be that a couple of paedophiles would expose their secret to a stranger, would you not agree?

I have no idea how paedophiles behave to be truthful . But at no stage did I call anyone a paedpohile in this thread .

Show Time

Silver Moon wrote: »

the mccanns never mention the reward either

I'm sure they would expect the good old British tax payer to foot the bill.

Mistyeyes321

lugha wrote: »

What are you on about? What I describe is in principle, almost identical to that game. I think you are just disagreeing for the sake of it.

No I guess you don't. But if nobody can offer a plausible explantion as to why two paedophiles would be so candid about their deviances with a total stranger, then this evidence is seriously undermined. Can you honestly not see this problem?

This has been answered. This women believed that this information was inportant and informed the police of it. But for the information to be of any worth, it would require that her interpretation of what she saw be correct. It is this interpretation that some of us question, not her integrity or honesty.

I Can assure you I am not just disagreeing for the sake of it...Again with respect we're not in a Court of Law so this offer something Plausible does not apply to me.... I didn't write the statement or make the allegation! As for the total stranger I think you will find this Lady was on holiday with these people staying in the same villa...Hardly a Total Stranger as you say! So again why would a Lady a Doctor risk everything she had to go into a Police Station in the Uk & Make a Statement like this? What possible reason could she have for wanting to add further Hurt & humiliation to this Man who's Child has just gone missing?! Not forgetting she & her Husband we're friends of these people & the same question regarding David Payne?! You see i'm finding this very hard to ignore! i'm also finding it very hard to ignore why the MCS & mr Payne would just ignore this statement? Because put yourself in their situation for a second...Someone a friend of your's whom you have been out to dinner with & away on holiday with..Suddenly goes into a Police station & makes a statement like this about you...How would you react? Are you telling me you would just ignore it?!

deco nate

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I Can assure you I am not just disagreeing for the sake of it...Again with respect we're not in a Court of Law so this offer something Plausible does not apply to me.... I didn't write the statement or make the allegation! As for the total stranger I think you will find this Lady was on holiday with these people staying in the same villa...Hardly a Total Stranger as you say! So again why would a Lady a Doctor risk everything she had to go into a Police Station in the Uk & Make a Statement like this? What possible reason could she have for wanting to add further Hurt & humiliation to this Man who's Child has just gone missing?! Not forgetting she & her Husband we're friends of these people & the same question regarding David Payne?! You see i'm finding this very hard to ignore! i'm also finding it very hard to ignore why the MCS & mr Payne would just ignore this statement? Because put yourself in their situation for a second...Someone a friend of your's whom you have been out to dinner with & away on holiday with..Suddenly goes into a Police station & makes a statement like this about you...How would you react? Are you telling me you would just ignore it?!

yep!and yet they sue/try to block anyone else that trys to tarnish thier name?!

Mountainsandh

About the reward, from K. McCann's book (p.312 Ch. 20) :

"Hoaxes of one kind or another have run into the hundreds, probably thousands now. Some of these people are just after publicity ; others have sought money. Although by and large the police are adept at dealing with this kind of crime, it still hinders our search. In deciding whether to promote the reward on offer for Madeleine's safe return, we have always had to weigh the inherent risk of attracting greedy criminals against the possibility of luring out of the woodwork somebody who really knows something. We now take the view that anyone with genuine information will be aware of the reward. If they want it, I'm sure they'll find a way of getting in touch."

Mountainsandh

deco nate wrote: »

yep!and yet they sue/try to block anyone else that trys to tarnish thier name?!

I think this statement never really made it to the level of : official statement of value for the investigation. It was passed on to the PJ, who didn't make any use of it.

Logically, the McCanns couldn't possibly sue someone for making a statement against one of their friends, even if they (might) think/thought the statement was utter rubbish and defamation.

People, you need to look at this statement for what it is : vague, subjective, and not a statement against Gerry McCann.

MistyEyes, I know what you're saying, you would wonder why a woman would go out of her way to make a statement like this.

Maybe she's a worried person (like me I have to say), she had this niggling thing that she genuinely believes, and just had to make sure that this was passed on. That doesn't mean her worry was based on anything really believable/tangible.

Maybe there is some animosity between her and D. Payne we don't know about, or between her and the McCanns. Maybe she liked the McCanns but she hated Payne or what she saw of him. Maybe she didn't care much about Payne, but had some kind of resentment or animosity against the McCann's, and the statement is a way to get one back on them.

There are so many things we don't know, we don't have any context. We just have to take titbits of information here and there, and have no idea what went on behind the scenes. The titbits of information are likely to often be distorted and unreliable.

PS : possibly David Payne has considered taking action against this statement, although if the statement has been considered of no value to the investigation, I'm sure any solicitor would advise him that he would be wasting his money.

lugha

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I have no idea how paedophiles behave to be truthful . But at no stage did I call anyone a paedpohile in this thread .

But this is the implication of the Gasper testimony don’t you agree?

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Again with respect we're not in a Court of Law so this offer something Plausible does not apply to me....

No I guess you don’t. But do you agree that this is a troublesome part of this evidence?

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

As for the total stranger I think you will find this Lady was on holiday with these people staying in the same villa.

What I meant was, she was not party to their supposed paedophile ring or did not share their supposedly disturbing views.

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

So again why would a Lady a Doctor risk everything she had to go into a Police Station in the Uk & Make a Statement like this? What possible reason could she have for wanting to add further Hurt & humiliation to this Man who's Child has just gone missing?! Not forgetting she & her Husband we're friends of these people & the same question regarding David Payne?! You see i'm finding this very hard to ignore!

She, as a good citizen, went to the police and give them an honest account of an incident she was a witness to. If her interpretation was wrong, then undoubtedly McCann and Payne would be deeply hurt by it. But I don’t see how they would have any recourse to law? Can you recall any time where a witness give a truthful account, as they saw it, and were subsequently sued?

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

But this is the implication of the Gasper testimony don’t you agree?



No I guess you don’t. But do you agree that this is a troublesome part of this evidence?



What I meant was, she was not party to their supposed paedophile ring or did not share their supposedly disturbing views.



She, as a good citizen, went to the police and give them an honest account of an incident she was a witness to. If her interpretation was wrong, then undoubtedly McCann and Payne would be deeply hurt by it. But I don’t see how they would have any recourse to law? Can you recall any time where a witness give a truthful account, as they saw it, and were subsequently sued?

Does not happen unless a statement was proven to be false.

What normally seems to happen if the injured party sues any media outlet that printed the statement and made claims relating to the statement.

Similar to what Robert Murat did after comments made by Kate McCann and also by the trio of Rachael Oldfield, Russell O'Brien and Fiona Payne were ran in UK papers, the same papers that pretty much wrote Murat off as guilty.


I did notice in this thread that the claim by Rachael Oldfield, Russell O'Brien and Fiona Payne is pretty much ignored. That trio claimed that they all saw Robert Murat at the complex/hotel on the night the child went missing. A claim that all three asked to withdraw from their statements some two months after giving the statements as being 100% that Murat was there. The statemnets of Murat being there were given during the time that Kate McCann was saying that she knew Murat was guilty and that Murat did it.

Once Murat was cleared by the police and got lawyered up over the comments and claims, suddenly people did not see what they had claimed to have seen, and to what they had said through friends to the UK media.


What still bothers me is the mentions of another couple at the table, a couple that are said to be related to an ex high ranking English politician. Given Gerry's previous involvement with the Labour party and his active campaign work for them in the past, and how quickly Gordon Brown got in contact with the McCanns, even before they were made suspects, and of course Clarence Mitchell's role within that same cabinet office, a role he stepped down from to become the McCann's media advisor/representative, I think that the political clout behind the McCanns is pretty big.

Matthew23

i wonder if the child madeline is still alive?

maebee

Matthew23 wrote: »

i wonder if the child madeline is still alive?

Sadly it's very unlikely. The dogs gave a strong indication that a corpse had been present in Apt. 5A and it's been said by the police that there had been no report of a death in that apartment.

Matthew23

maebee wrote: »

Sadly it's very unlikely. The dogs gave a strong indication that a corpse had been present in Apt. 5A and it's been said by the police that there had been no report of a death in that apartment.

are the dogs always true? may be it was a mistkae?

maebee

Matthew23 wrote: »

are the dogs always true? may be it was a mistkae?

Plenty of info on the dogs here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

Hookah

Matthew23 wrote: »

are the dogs always true? may be it was a mistkae?

No. Sniffer dogs often pick up on, and react to, non-verbal clues from their handlers.

It is far from a proven science.

All things sniffer-dog are well covered in this book.

Kess73

Matthew23 wrote: »

are the dogs always true? may be it was a mistkae?

While there can always be the chance of an error, one of the dogs had a strike rate of 200 correct finds from 200 cases before the McCann case.

The other main dog used had a similar strike rate.


What bugs me about Kate McCanns excuse about what the dogs found is that she is saying that she may have been near dead bodies just before the holiday and as such may have brought a scent/particles with her.

Now even if we go with that and assume that a qualified medical professional did not clean up correctly or wear the correct clothing when dealing with dead bodies so that she would have enough on her to be detected month later, it still leaves one very obvious flaw in her logic imho.


If she had the scent on her and is saying that it was passed onto things she touched, why did the dog not react to pretty much everywhere Kate was and why did it not react to where she sat in the passenger seat of the car more than it did to underneath the carpet of the boot of the car and how come the spot that got the most dog attention in the apartment was behind the couch but not spots where Kate McCann, who says she must have had the scent on her, would have been like her bedroom etc?


The dog reacted to behind the couch, under the carpet in the car boot, the steps at the back of the apartment, and part of the church the McCanns were given the keys to so they could be totally alone in it.


If Kate's story is to be believed, in that she left the scent, then the scent should have been found at any spot she was on a regular basis and not just in a few spots. To me this suggests that Kate was not leaving the scent of a body she touched weeks or months earlier and that the dog picked up on something else.

Plus we have the blood dog reacting to specific spots only as well.


The thing that makes the apartment search stand out is that one dog was sent in without it's handler close by so that the dog could be seen to home in on anything it found without any claims that the handler prompted it. The handler then went to the dog once the dog stopped and signalled a find.


Dogs can make mistakes, but unlike people they will have no agenda or axe to grind and a highly trained dog will have a success rate% in the high 90s in terms of finding a scent.

Now whether or not the scent was from the child is another story.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

While there can always be the chance of an error, one of the dogs had a strike rate of 200 correct finds from 200 cases before the McCann case.

While the dog evidence is strong, and IMO, the only solid evidence supporting involvement by the McCanns, what you are claiming (though you may be just mis-stating it) is not true. It is not possible to say what the dog's success rate is in practice unless you know with complete certainty in all these cases that a body was either definitely present or definitely not. And if you knew that, they you would have no need for the dog.

flanum

i thought the late late show was finished for the year?

hondasam

flanum wrote: »

i thought the late late show was finished for the year?

It is but what has that got to do with this thread?

ISDW

hondasam wrote: »

It is but what has that got to do with this thread?

I can't work out if thats really clever and funny, or you've forgotten what this thread actualy started out as:D

hondasam

ISDW wrote: »

I can't work out if thats really clever and funny, or you've forgotten what this thread actualy started out as:D

clever and funny, I have not forgotten how the thread started
At this stage it seems like last year it's going on so long.

Kess73

lugha wrote: »

While the dog evidence is strong, and IMO, the only solid evidence supporting involvement by the McCanns, what you are claiming (though you may be just mis-stating it) is not true. It is not possible to say what the dog's success rate is in practice unless you know with complete certainty in all these cases that a body was either definitely present or definitely not. And if you knew that, they you would have no need for the dog.

One of the dogs had been involved in 200 homicide cases at the time of being called into the McCann case. In all 200 cases that dog was able to either link a weapon to a body/person or to identify a spot that was later proven to be the correct spot of death or hiding spot of body.

It does not mean the McCanns are involved in some accident that lead to the death of their child, but it gives the dog a frighteningly accurate past strike rate and does cast some doubt on Kate McCanns story about the cadevar scent seeing as the dog was unable to get it from Kate's clothing or from the bedroom where Kate slept etc.

maebee

Gerry McCann "Nothing was as bad as the night we found her"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLBAk8QY7bo&NR=1

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

One of the dogs had been involved in 200 homicide cases at the time of being called into the McCann case. In all 200 cases that dog was able to either link a weapon to a body/person or to identify a spot that was later proven to be the correct spot of death or hiding spot of body.

Well, I seriously doubt that. That evidence is strong but not as strong as you are suggesting.

Kess73 wrote: »

It does not mean the McCanns are involved in some accident that lead to the death of their child, but it gives the dog a frighteningly accurate past strike rate and does cast some doubt on Kate McCanns story about the cadevar scent seeing as the dog was unable to get it from Kate's clothing or from the bedroom where Kate slept etc.

I don't think Kate's explanation is particularly plausible.

iamwhoiam

flanum wrote: »

i thought the late late show was finished for the year?

The book is still on the shelves

Matthew23

does anybody have the book by the parents? i wonder if it is good because i an interested in the story of what happened to madeline

iamwhoiam

Matthew23 wrote: »

does anybody have the book by the parents? i wonder if it is good because i an interested in the story of what happened to madeline

Arent we all , I dont think you will find any answers in the book I am afraid ,