Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Mistyeyes321

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?

Of course I agree this Lady went & made this Statement imho with the right intention's...I don't for one minute think she did this without alot of thought especially given the Fact she was Friend's will all these people!
I do however think if someone made these kind of Allegation's about me I would take them to Hell & back I couldn't just Ignore it, It isn't like someone saying, "Well he had a Hole in his sock TuT TuT"! One reason why I can't understand Gerry & David Payne not wanting to do the same?! Maybe they have & we just don't know about it... This Statement should never have been held back from the PJ for aslong as it was...Shame on whom ever let this happen with the Knowledge that a Three year old Child was missing! I hope they can sleep at night!

Mistyeyes321

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.

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.

Great Post well said..

lugha

Matthew23 wrote: »

i an interested in the story of what happened to madeline

If you figure it out, you will let us know?:)

My best advice to you would be to wait about 20 years, or whatever length the statutue of limitations is! If there was a conspiracy involving the McCanns and their friends then I expect the truth will out eventually.
As their children grow and start to ask questions, or perhaps if a tabloid starts waving a cheque book, or maybe someone on their death bed might want to unburden themselves, I think any omerta might be broken. Especially if friendship ties, or even marriages fray over the years.

But if it was an intruder, then I doubt if the full truth will ever be known.

lugha

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Of course I agree this Lady went & made this Statement imho with the right intention's...I don't for one minute think she did this without alot of thought especially given the Fact she was Friend's will all these people!
I do however think if someone made these kind of Allegation's about me I would take them to Hell & back I couldn't just Ignore it, It isn't like someone saying, "Well he had a Hole in his sock TuT TuT"! One reason why I can't understand Gerry & David Payne not wanting to do the same?! Maybe they have & we just don't know about it... This Statement should never have been held back from the PJ for aslong as it was...Shame on whom ever let this happen with the Knowledge that a Three year old Child was missing! I hope they can sleep at night!

To be honest, I think the whole paedophile angle is nonsense anyway. It's useful in a smear campaign of course but it isn't necessary to fill in any missing pieces in the puzzle. There are more obvious reasons why the McCanns (if they were involved) would not want the body found, other than to disguise abuse.

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

I have to say I think this Lady did this with the best Intention's & if she believed 100% in her heart this was exactly what she seen not on one occasion but two, Then imho good for her having the Gut's to pass this information on to the Police! I admire her very much for standing up & being counted...Unlike so many other's who see thing's & turn a Blind eye & hush it up! Baby P a Typical example of so many children failed by Doctors, Police, officers, Social workers, the list goes on & on! Which bring's me to the point again why was this if true not passed to the PJ? On who's say so was this statement ignore & with held for someone said "5 month's??" How can that ever be justified?! Btw I also wonder if Mr Payne has considered taking action from the other Lady who also made a Statement to the PJ who used to work in CPS for Many year's & claimed she knew him from maybe a Previous case!
I'm not saying any of this is true I just don't understand why these things have been ignore? Nothing more or less!

Stella89

When Gerry and Kate McCann tried to put an injunction against a book that was to be published by Goncalo Amaral .

Tavares de Almeida referring to Madeline in court on January 12th 2010.

“She died in the apartment as a result of a tragic accident and the parents simulated an abduction after failing to care of their children,” Tavares de Almeida, former chief inspector at Portimao police station during the initial months of the investigation, told the court in Lisbon.
“These were the conclusions of a police report signed by me on September 10 2007,” he added


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

Mistyeyes321

lugha wrote: »

To be honest, I think the whole paedophile angle is nonsense anyway. It's useful in a smear campaign of course but it isn't necessary to fill in any missing pieces in the puzzle. There are more obvious reasons why the McCanns (if they were involved) would not want the body found, other than to disguise abuse.

I certainly would never ever smear anyone names...Maybe it is all Nonsence I grant you & it would be Horrendous for someone to make thing's like this up just for the fun of it...Another reason why I wouldn't let it go!

I have stated clearly I do not think the MCS Hurt their child apart from leaving them Babies alone which has been done to death...

Mountainsandh

Kess73 wrote: »

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.


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.

QUOTE]

Could you find a quote or a source to support that Kess73 ?
I absolutely do not remember any time when Kate McCann said she "knew Murat was guilty and that Murat did it". And that's not from reading the book, that's just from following the case. I'd like to read it if there's a source.

edit : I googled and found 2 spots : one from the Daily Mail that says "sources close to the McCanns say Kate thinks he's guilty" (:rolleyes:), and a blog that quotes another blog (of the usual anti-McCanns crew), that says she said in her notes, that is, I'm guessing in her diary, that the PJ took (and really should not have been published, should it ?), that she thought he was guilty.

Fair enough, but writing something in your diary and making a public statement are two different things. How could Murat ever even envisage to sue over what someone wrote in their diary ? Kate McCann didn't pass the diary on to the police willingly, so really, saying she was trying to incriminate Murat is groundless. Privately, she thought he was guilty, yes, that's not a crime.

Matthew23

lugha wrote: »

If you figure it out, you will let us know?:)

.

if i do i will start a topic on boards.ie about it

Stella89

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

You want to read the account of the prime suspects to find out "what happened to Madeline"

Matthew23

Stella89 wrote: »

You want to read the account of the prime suspects to find out "what happened to Madeline"

wel i think it is probebly interesting to see what they say but i dont think it says where she is

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Kess73 wrote: »

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.


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.

QUOTE]

Could you find a quote or a source to support that Kess73 ?
I absolutely do not remember any time when Kate McCann said she "knew Murat was guilty and that Murat did it". And that's not from reading the book, that's just from following the case. I'd like to read it if there's a source.

edit : I googled and found 2 spots : one from the Daily Mail that says "sources close to the McCanns say Kate thinks he's guilty" (:rolleyes:), and a blog that quotes another blog (of the usual anti-McCanns crew), that says she said in her notes, that is, I'm guessing in her diary, that the PJ took (and really should not have been published, should it ?), that she thought he was guilty.

Fair enough, but writing something in your diary and making a public statement are two different things. How could Murat ever even envisage to sue over what someone wrote in their diary ? Kate McCann didn't pass the diary on to the police willingly, so really, saying she was trying to incriminate Murat is groundless. Privately, she thought he was guilty, yes, that's not a crime.

Now talking about Murat I don't actually get this at all I haven't seen that stuff all I have seen is the Statement's made to british police Tanner's, Oldfields,Payne, Where they say something along the lines of...No no i'm not saying he was there that night!!! So other than that I don't know the story or why he was brought into this...I am being very honest btw!:)

Silver Moon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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."

what would it matter if the informant was a 'greedy criminal' so long as Madeleine was brought home safe?

And how can Kate expect people to know/contact them about the reward if it is not publicised?

Silver Moon

an interesting article from the UK Independent last year

Can the McCanns be thinking straight?

Three years have passed since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and her parents are determined that the search for her should not slip out of the world's headlines. To keep the story alive, they have just released a moody video, complete with a musical soundtrack, which includes a photograph of the three-year-old wearing make-up and gazing into the camera. It is that image which, predictably, has featured in the media,

It seems a bizarre and unsettling development. Clearly, Kate and Gerry McCann have been living through a nightmare of unimaginable horror and perhaps, even after three years, they are not thinking straight. If so, someone should surely have pointed out to them that, in a case over which paedophilia casts an obvious shadow, it looks downright weird when a photograph which has the effect of sexualising the missing child becomes part of the campaign to find her.

Obviously, the make-up game and the photograph were innocent at the time but, when the private picture is released into the public domain in these circumstances, something altogether nastier kicks in.

What was the point of this exercise, apart from getting more news coverage? At a time when there is justified concern over Primark selling Little Miss Naughty padded bras for eight-year-olds and allegations that Playboy brands are being aimed at the primary school market, the circulation of this can only feed prurience of the very worst kind.

Maybe it was a misjudgement, but it confirms a niggling sense that the McCanns' publicity–at-all-costs campaign has seriously lost its way.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/terence-blacker/terence-blacker-depressing-clichs-sadly-perpetuated-1961380.html

Mountainsandh

I think she means greedy criminals who wouldn't have a clue where she is or what happened, but would lie to get the reward.

And like she says, by now, every one more than likely knows there is a reward to be got, especially so with the people who might hold some information, since they would be likely to have kept an eye on the case since day 1. It's not like someone who has never heard of the case is going to come up and give information about it.

Silver Moon

I think there are plenty of people who are not aware that a reward exists.

Mountainsandh

Matthew23 wrote: »

wel i think it is probebly interesting to see what they say but i dont think it says where she is

Hi Matthew23, I have the book and I think AudreyHepburn does too (never thought I could ever say Audrey Hepburn and myself had anything in common :D:D).

I think the McCanns are innocent myself, so the book gives me an insight into Kate McCanns behaviour, since I too, perceived her as distant, cold at times. It helps understand her personality. She didn't show it, as I thought, but cried and got angry in private, all along. She does moan an awful lot throughout the book, but in their situation who wouldn't ?

It gives an idea of how their lives are now totally engrossed in the search, and efforts to get authorities moving on how to handle missing children's cases.
It paints a picture of 2 people who have filled their lives with that, and are admitting that they needed to do that in order to cope.

It doesn't reveal anything ground breaking about the investigation, but it explains a lot of things that have been blown out of proportion in the media, or simply distorted for more drama.

For example, Jane Tanner, who never fully identified Robert Murat as the man who crossed the street with child, as was later claimed. She was placed by the police in a truck in ambush, and they waited for R. Murat to walk by in the street (they knew he was due to pass that way) , and asked her if it could be the same man. But she didn't have a clear view of the man (Murat) walking by at that moment, and she said it could be, but she wasn't quite sure, she couldn't be fully sure, first minutes a car passed by and blocked her view, then there were branches overhanging, and the windows in the truck were steamed up. The PJ didn't take a formal statement from her that evening, but later went on to say she had formally identified the man carrying the child as Robert Murat.

TommyTippee

Richard Dower wrote: »

If the child did die by accident, how or where did they get rid of the body?

Judging by the sniffer dogs, it seems the body would have been hidden in the apartment.

Remember, they wouldn't have been searching for a tiny body on the night, but a girl alive.

Also, there was a fridge that was dumped. Possibly in there?

Also, the dogs found odour in the wheel well of the hired car, so possibly there too.

Also, the Smith family spotted who they think was Gerry McCann carrying a toddler towards the beach on the night.


Lots of possibilities....none of which have been clearly ruled out, to my knowledge.

TommyTippee

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think the McCanns are innocent myself, so the book gives me an insight into Kate McCanns behaviour, since I too, perceived her as distant, cold at times. It helps understand her personality. She didn't show it, as I thought, but cried and got angry in private, all along. She does moan an awful lot throughout the book, but in their situation who wouldn't ?

I still think there's a good possibility that Kate McCann is innocent, in that she may not be aware of what truly went on.

The shutters and all that nonsense may all be Gerry's doing.

If what the Smith family say is true, Gerry may have discovered Madeline and removed her from the apartment, while Kate McCann was still in the bar.

Matthew23

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hi Matthew23, I have the book and I think AudreyHepburn does too (never thought I could ever say Audrey Hepburn and myself had anything in common :D:D).

I think the McCanns are innocent myself, so the book gives me an insight into Kate McCanns behaviour, since I too, perceived her as distant, cold at times. It helps understand her personality. She didn't show it, as I thought, but cried and got angry in private, all along. She does moan an awful lot throughout the book, but in their situation who wouldn't ?

It gives an idea of how their lives are now totally engrossed in the search, and efforts to get authorities moving on how to handle missing children's cases.
It paints a picture of 2 people who have filled their lives with that, and are admitting that they needed to do that in order to cope.

It doesn't reveal anything ground breaking about the investigation, but it explains a lot of things that have been blown out of proportion in the media, or simply distorted for more drama.

For example, Jane Tanner, who never fully identified Robert Murat as the man who crossed the street with child, as was later claimed. She was placed by the police in a truck in ambush, and they waited for R. Murat to walk by in the street (they knew he was due to pass that way) , and asked her if it could be the same man. But she didn't have a clear view of the man (Murat) walking by at that moment, and she said it could be, but she wasn't quite sure, she couldn't be fully sure, first minutes a car passed by and blocked her view, then there were branches overhanging, and the windows in the truck were steamed up. The PJ didn't take a formal statement from her that evening, but later went on to say she had formally identified the man carrying the child as Robert Murat.

wow that is a very good answer thanks you alot!:p it sounds like a good book

ISDW

TommyTippee wrote: »

Judging by the sniffer dogs, it seems the body would have been hidden in the apartment.

Remember, they wouldn't have been searching for a tiny body on the night, but a girl alive.

Also, there was a fridge that was dumped. Possibly in there?

Also, the dogs found odour in the wheel well of the hired car, so possibly there too.

Also, the Smith family spotted who they think was Gerry McCann carrying a toddler towards the beach on the night.


Lots of possibilities....none of which have been clearly ruled out, to my knowledge.

The fridge was from a villa they stayed in after she went missing. The hire car was hired 23 days after she went missing. So a body couldn't have been hidden in either the fridge or the car on the night she disappeared.

TommyTippee

ISDW wrote: »

The fridge was from a villa they stayed in after she went missing. The hire car was hired 23 days after she went missing. So a body couldn't have been hidden in either the fridge or the car on the night she disappeared.

True.

Definitely the hired car seems to been used to move the body though, judging by the sniffer dog's reaction.

Ok, so rethinking, I would say Madeline McCann had an accident in the apartment (sniffer dogs findings), was carried out by Gerry on the night to the beach (Smith family statement), was later collected using the hired car (sniffer dogs again) and buried somewhere in the land around the area.

Are there 24 hour records of the McCanns' movements after the disappearance? From what I read, the Portugese Police were blocked from doing this, aswell as tapping the McCanns' phones.

Mistyeyes321

ISDW wrote: »

The fridge was from a villa they stayed in after she went missing. The hire car was hired 23 days after she went missing. So a body couldn't have been hidden in either the fridge or the car on the night she disappeared.

So there was a Fridge that was disposed of by the Mcs then? I had the impression it was just Rumour..

Mistyeyes321

TommyTippee wrote: »

True.

Definitely the hired car seems to been used to move the body though, judging by the sniffer dog's reaction.

Ok, so rethinking, I would say Madeline McCann had an accident in the apartment (sniffer dogs findings), was carried out by Gerry on the night to the beach (Smith family statement), was later collected using the hired car (sniffer dogs again) and buried somewhere in the land around the area.

Are there 24 hour records of the McCanns' movements after the disappearance? From what I read, the Portugese Police were blocked from doing this, aswell as tapping the McCanns' phones.

I don't know nearly half of what other's know on this Case....I have to say Timelines for me are the answer to everything here imho...If the Mcs are lying then I think this is what is most likely to be what they are lying about...

TommyTippee

The upshot of this whole thing is really simple. The most logical explanation is usually right.

So which is right?

An abductor staying in the resort was watching the McCanns for several days. Got in on the night...sedated the three kids (per Kate McCann). Carried Madeline out of the window, instead of an unlocked door (per Gerry McCann) without leaving a shred of evidence anywhere

OR

Left alone, Madeline McCann having been given Calpol (per Kate McCann's father) wakes alone, walks to living room and climbs up on sofa having hearing Dad talking outside (to tennis pal). Falls and dies behind sofa (per sniffer dogs).
Gerry arrives and discovers her dead. Carries her down empty streets to beach and concocts abduction story to cover up death to make the best of a terrible tragedy for him and Kate, their friends and most of all, their young twins. After all, they would have been imprisoned with the twins taken into care.

Which seems more plausible?

lugha

TommyTippee wrote: »

An abductor staying in the resort was watching the McCanns for several days. Got in on the night...sedated the three kids (per Kate McCann). Carried Madeline out of the window, instead of an unlocked door (per Gerry McCann) without leaving a shred of evidence anywhere

I am not sure why you (and so many others) need to integrate what the McCanns think into the scenario. They don’t know, anymore than you or I do.
If there was an abductor he more than likely came in the door, or possibly Madeline wandered outside and was snatched opportunistically. Either way, I don’t think there would be any evidence left?

TommyTippee wrote: »

Left alone, Madeline McCann having been given Calpol (per Kate McCann's father) wakes alone, walks to living room and climbs up on sofa having hearing Dad talking outside (to tennis pal). Falls and dies behind sofa (per sniffer dogs).
Gerry arrives and discovers her dead. Carries her down empty streets to beach and concocts abduction story to cover up death to make the best of a terrible tragedy for him and Kate, their friends and most of all, their young twins. After all, they would have been imprisoned with the twins taken into care.

Well, not surprisingly, I have a few issues with that explanation.

First. It is really likely that the McCanns would have been prosecuted? I can recall cases in the UK where children died as a result of carelessness (e.g. reversing over toddlers in their driveway) and I’m pretty sure the parents were not imprisoned.

But assuming they would, or more pertinently, that Gerry thought they would, it is an absolutely bizarre reaction for a parent to think like that. It is not out of the question, but as plausibility goes, that is seriously not!
Plus, I think it would implicate the friends (and his wife) as his demeanour would surely be very different after, and they must have agreed not to report this.
Plus, you have to ask why someone who could behave so pragmatically despite his grief, didn’t think to “do a job” in the apartment to make the intruder argument more sellable?
Edit: Plus, would it not have been necessary for a dead body to be in situ for some time for the dogs to detect it?

The biggest problem with dismissing this explanation, or some variation of it, is the dog evidence. It isn’t plausible that the dog evidence is wrong, but is it less implausible than your alternative?

An alternative explanation of the dog evidence is that it may have been planted by the police who were under pressure to get a result. Now there is no evidence of this and I am only suggesting it hypothetically, but would you not agree that it is perhaps, more plausible that the truly bizarre behaviour Gerry would have had to engage in.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

I am not sure why you (and so many others) need to integrate what the McCanns think into the scenario. They don’t know, anymore than you or I do.
If there was an abductor he more than likely came in the door, or possibly Madeline wandered outside and was snatched opportunistically. Either way, I don’t think there would be any evidence left?


Well, not surprisingly, I have a few issues with that explanation.

First. It is really likely that the McCanns would have been prosecuted? I can recall cases in the UK where children died as a result of carelessness (e.g. reversing over toddlers in their driveway) and I’m pretty sure the parents were not imprisoned.

But assuming they would, or more pertinently, that Gerry thought they would, it is an absolutely bizarre reaction for a parent to think like that. It is not out of the question, but as plausibility goes, that is seriously not!
Plus, I think it would implicate the friends (and his wife) as his demeanour would surely be very different after, and they must have agreed not to report this.
Plus, you have to ask why someone who could behave so pragmatically despite his grief, didn’t think to “do a job” in the apartment to make the intruder argument more sellable?

The biggest problem with dismissing this explanation, or some variation of it, is the dog evidence. It isn’t plausible that the dog evidence is wrong, but is it less implausible than your alternative?

An alternative explanation of the dog evidence is that it may have been planted by the police who were under pressure to get a result. Now there is no evidence of this and I am only suggesting it hypothetically, but would you not agree that it is perhaps, more plausible that the truly bizarre behaviour Gerry would have had to engage in.

So if madeleine wandered out on to the street, why did Kate say Cuddle Cat had been moved by the abductor (and then went on to wash what she believed to be tangible evidence).

And then she carries it around in her baxkpack for weeks but makes sure she washes her 'missing child's' scent from it. Nah, that makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:

Running over a small child is an accident. Leaving toddlers alone (and possibly sedated) is neglect and I think in a state of panic that is what the McCanns may have thought as well.

Anyone have a link to the story that the McCanns refused to let police take hair samples of the twins to rule out sedation? If it was proved that they had been sedated, it would have been a very strong indicator to posible other scenarios.


There are a million plausible scenarios but the abduction one is far further down the list than involvement and cover-up by the McCann's IMO.


Looking at every dodgy thing they say/do and saying 'yeah, but we don't know what they were thinking blah blah' is closing your mind off to other plausible possiblilties.

I watched a programme on TV last night about the dissapearance of Jaycee Dugard (imprisoned for 18 years). The step-father took 4 lie detector tests to state that he had seen a couple abduct his step-daughter.

The fact the McCanns refused any kind of questioning under these circumstances to clear their names speaks volumes. They are most certainly protecting themselves on some level.

There are those that believe this and those who obviously don't and at this point everyone has their own stance and has been arguing too long to cross to the other side. I know I won't be

up for anything

I don't understand why people think it is Calpol that they supposedly 'drugged' the children with. It never worked for me when I tried it, or for anyone else I know, when used in desperation for a few hours sleep. You'd have better luck with Dozol.

I always assumed that if they'd sedated the children that they used something specifically made for that purpose.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

So if madeleine wandered out on to the street, why did Kate say Cuddle Cat had been moved by the abductor (and then went on to wash what she believed to be tangible evidence).

And then she carries it around in her baxkpack for weeks but makes sure she washes her 'missing child's' scent from it. Nah, that makes perfect sense.

Once again. Kate does not know what the abductor did or did not do. I cannot comprehend why people think her views on the abductor theory have to be worked into any explanation? If she was involved, she knows everything. If she wasn’t she knows no more than you or me.

And what does or does not make sense it not relevant. What it relevant is whether or not a particular action by the McCanns is suspicious (i.e. something you might expect from them if they were guilty but not if they were innocent). I don’t think washing the cat is indicative of anything. If she was involved, what would she be hiding by washing the cat?

sunflower27 wrote: »

Running over a small child is an accident.

I would see it as more neglect and less accident that a child falling off a couch. But you are right, it is a question of how the McCanns thought it might be viewed, and we can only speculate about that. The big problem with any explanation involving the McCanns is that they could be so cool about it all around their friends. And I think Tommy’s particular scenario doesn’t work because, as I recall, a body would have to have been in place for a few hours for the dogs to be able to do their thing (I may be mis-recalling this though)

sunflower27 wrote: »

There are a million plausible scenarios but the abduction one is far further down the list than involvement and cover-up by the McCann's IMO.

Actually there are not. Every scenario I have heard presented, including ones that exonerate the McCanns, have seriously implausible elements. And I don’t see why the abduction one is so far down? It’s still the one that works best for me.

sunflower27 wrote: »

The fact the McCanns refused any kind of questioning under these circumstances to clear their names speaks volumes. They are most certainly protecting themselves on some level.

How would you respond if you were accused of being involved in the disappearance of your child and were asked to take a lie detector test? I certainly would be extremely hostile and would be inclined to refuse. Of course, it would be much smarter to agree, if only so the police would stop wasting resources investigating me. But I’m not sure I would be so rational in my thinking in that situation. I suspect you are right about them hiding something but it doesn’t necessarily need to have anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance. I think the whole tapas crew are less than forthcoming. Do you think they were all involved?

sunflower27 wrote: »

There are those that believe this and those who obviously don't and at this point everyone has their own stance and has been arguing too long to cross to the other side. I know I won't be

Not me.:) Anybody who can offer an explanation that works better than the abduction , I’ll be happy to hear it.

mattser

For god's sake will you leave the couple alone. They have lost their child and have suffered horrendous anguish, and all you can do is play amateur detective with their loss.