Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

iamwhoiam

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

On the latter part of your Post I have to say until we're in that position none of us know for sure how we would react...Having been down this road myself through the Magistrates court's then onto Crown court for the person involed to be given a Three month suspended sentence....I can say hand on heart if I was ever in this Situation again, I wouldn't ever go down the Legal route again...This may sound irrational & scary but I would shout his/Her name from the roof top's, So on this I can understand especially if Mrs Mc was sure it was this person who took her Child! I know this isn't the right message to put out there really when we're looking at it from a PC point of View...However when you have a Child who has been Damaged by these sicko's for life you start looking bat this from a very Different point of View!

By the same token should Mrs Mc Cann not then have come out and retracted any statement she made against him ? I know if it was my son or my father or my husband who was innocent I would be very keen to have this made clear .
While I get where you are coming from and having daughters of my own I think damaging an innocent man is so dreadfully unfair too ,

Mistyeyes321

iamwhoiam wrote: »

By the same token should Mrs Mc Cann not then have come out and retracted any statement she made against him ? I know if it was my son or my father or my husband who was innocent I would be very keen to have this made clear .
While I get where you are coming from and having daughters of my own I think damaging an innocent man is so dreadfully unfair too ,

Absolutly I agree there should be a Public Appology no question I have Son's too so I understand exactly what your saying! which was one of the reason's I couldn't & still don't understand why the Statement's regarding Payne was ignored! & Not passed onto the PJ! Pedophiles are not born with it written on their birth certificate & it is known by the time they do get prosecuted they have already Offended Numerous times...Not that i'm saying this about Payne...."The Pedophile bit I mean"!

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course they want to innocent until proven guilty, that's the way the law works.

On Murat, perhaps they were hasty but if you truely believed this man had hurt your daughter I doubt you would be willingly to say anything complimentary about him.

What if you are then wrong ? You are damaging a man who did nothing at all wrong and that in itself is not right and should be made clear .

The Mc Canns are always quick to point , quick to sue , quick to accuse .I think they should be just as quick to say they have been wrong . But I am guessing that wont happen as they are not really open to correction as far as I can see .

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

What if you are then wrong ? You are damaging a man who did nothing at all wrong and that in itself is not right and should be made clear .

The Mc Canns are always quick to point , quick to sue , quick to accuse .I think they should be just as quick to say they have been wrong . But I am guessing that wont happen as they are not really open to correction as far as I can see .

Don't misunderstand me, I do believe they ought to have apologised to Murat. I just feel people would do well to try and understand why Kate would have reacted as she did to him, instead of throwing every critiscim in the book at her.

alie wrote: »

I am reading their book at the moment, there are so many inconsistincies in her tale, i dont understand how a mother on findind one child missing could then leave the apartment and her other 2 kids there alone again, and on suspecting they were given a sedative not to have brought them to a hospital to have a blood test done. And to also be able to go jogging when she said herself she didnt eat for days and could barely move!!

You are thinking rationally and logically about her reaction. Try to put yourself in her shoes that night. She had just discovered her little daughter missing and she was quite rightly hysterical over it. No woman is going to think rationally at a time like that.

On the jogging, I have given the quotes from her book in which she explains why she went ie to clear her mind, to punish herself etc.

maebee

Try to put yourself in her shoes that night. She had just discovered her little daughter missing and she was quite rightly hysterical over it. No woman is going to think rationally at a time like that.

With respect Audrey, you are looking at this from one side only. You are unwavering in your belief that KM had "just discovered her daughter missing". Herein lies the problem. I too thought that in the early days, but as time went on and so much more came to light, I no longer believed that KM found Madeleine missing. Backtrack to Kate's first words "They've taken her" and follow on from there, beginning with the lie about the jemmied shutters. I would just ask that you open your mind to the fact that the McCanns may not be telling the truth about the disappearance of their daughter.

alie

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't misunderstand me, I do believe they ought to have apologised to Murat. I just feel people would do well to try and understand why Kate would have reacted as she did to him, instead of throwing every critiscim in the book at her.



You are thinking rationally and logically about her reaction. Try to put yourself in her shoes that night. She had just discovered her little daughter missing and she was quite rightly hysterical over it. No woman is going to think rationally at a time like that.

On the jogging, I have given the quotes from her book in which she explains why she went ie to clear her mind, to punish herself etc.

I too have kids and if in her shoes i know my first thought would be my children , she said she went into accident mode , where was the accident?? She disturbed a crime scene, she is a doctor and must have known this was wrong, jogging to clear your mind , yes but earlier in the day she said she was unable to do anything!! If she was so hysterical how come she can remember everything in fine detail?

sunflower27

alie wrote: »

I too have kids and if in her shoes i know my first thought would be my children , she said she went into accident mode , where was the accident?? She disturbed a crime scene, she is a doctor and must have known this was wrong, jogging to clear your mind , yes but earlier in the day she said she was unable to do anything!! If she was so hysterical how come she can remember everything in fine detail?

I also believed at first that Madeleine had been abducted but there are just way too many inconsistencies in my mind - the 'they've taken her', the disturbing vital evidence like taking the toy that Kate said the abductor must have moved and washing it, the shutters, the not answering questions, their refusal to accept any different events to what they perceived to have happened (when they were not even around the room to see anything), the other children not waking despite all the crazy commotion, the sniffer dogs...

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

With respect Audrey, you are looking at this from one side only. You are unwavering in your belief that KM had "just discovered her daughter missing". Herein lies the problem. I too thought that in the early days, but as time went on and so much more came to light, I no longer believed that KM found Madeleine missing. Backtrack to Kate's first words "They've taken her" and follow on from there, beginning with the lie about the jemmied shutters. I would just ask that you open your mind to the fact that the McCanns may not be telling the truth about the disappearance of their daughter.

Are only those who believe the McCanns killed their daughter open-minded then?

Are you willing to consider they might be innocent? If not why should I be willing to consider them guilty?

I have looked at the evidence as it is presented to us. I have watched The Truth Of The Lie, I am reading Kate's book, I watched Madeleine Was Here. I have considered all the information given and for me there just isn't anything that would make me suspicious.

Even the 'damning' evidence from the cadaver dogs isn't really that
'damning'.

Mistyeyes321

sunflower27 wrote: »

I also believed at first that Madeleine had been abducted but there are just way too many inconsistencies in my mind - the 'they've taken her', the disturbing vital evidence like taking the toy that Kate said the abductor must have moved and washing it, the shutters, the not answering questions, their refusal to accept any different events to what they perceived to have happened (when they were not even around the room to see anything), the other children not waking despite all the crazy commotion, the sniffer dogs...

There is a couple of thing's mentioned on this thread that make me wonder...One being a great point regarding Mrs M, Having the smell of death on her by "Kess 73"...That if this was how the scent had infact been present due to her visiting a dead body before her trip to portugal which is possible! So if this Cadaver was indeed present & passed this way then surely it would have been all over the Apartment & NOT just Selected places ! Yet no one has come back with anything regarding this Point! On how this would be possible?! Big point imho...The second one being a few poster's have mentioned this point...Why if you think your children have been Drugged especally being Doctor's did the Mcs not take their two Children to a Hospiatl? Because even if both we're in shock for a couple days & not thinking Rationally isn't it something like six month's certain drugs remain in the hair? Depending how long the Hair is...So almost all drug's would have been present for a certain amount of time...

maebee

AudreyHepburn;72615734]Are only those who believe the McCanns killed their daughter open-minded then?

I never said that they killed their daughter. I don't believe they did. I believe that Madeleine died accidentally and that her parents covered it up.

Are you willing to consider they might be innocent? If not why should I be willing to consider them guilty?

Early days I DID consider that they were innocent but their actions gave me cause for suspicion and when I read the Final Report of the PJ, supported by the British police, I no longer considered them innocent.

I have looked at the evidence as it is presented to us. I have watched The Truth Of The Lie, I am reading Kate's book, I watched Madeleine Was Here. I have considered all the information given and for me there just isn't anything that would make me suspicious.

Have you read the police files?

Even the 'damning' evidence from the cadaver dogs isn't really that
'damning'

.

If a sniffer dog indicated a bomb/explosive on a plane, would you get on it? The dogs indicated the presence of a corpse in that apartment. The McCanns dissed the dogs. They didn't want to know if someone had died in that apartment. They are all about defending themselves, nothing else.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

I also believed at first that Madeleine had been abducted but there are just way too many inconsistencies in my mind - the 'they've taken her', the disturbing vital evidence like taking the toy that Kate said the abductor must have moved and washing it, the shutters, the not answering questions, their refusal to accept any different events to what they perceived to have happened (when they were not even around the room to see anything), the other children not waking despite all the crazy commotion, the sniffer dogs...

I think when you analyse much of what you cite there (with the exception of the dog evidence) it doesn’t really add up to much in the way of evidence. Yes, much of what they have said and did would be rather strange things for innocent people to come out with. But they would also be rather strange things for guilty people to come out with. In short, all you can say is you have a strange couple!

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

There is a couple of thing's mentioned on this thread that make me wonder...One being a great point regarding Mrs M, Having the smell of death on her by "Kess 73"...That if this was how the scent had infact been present due to her visiting a dead body before her trip to portugal which is possible! So if this Cadaver was indeed present & passed this way then surely it would have been all over the Apartment & NOT just Selected places ! Yet no one has come back with anything regarding this Point! On how this would be possible?! Big point imho...

:mad: Well I addressed that point actually. In short, and like many of Mrs M.s explanations, it doesn’t really fly IMO. Really the only way to dismiss the dog evidence is to argue that it is one of these cases where the dog is wrong. (Edit: Or if you fancy something jucier, the police planted the evidence)

BTW, I have just realised why you all treat the McCanns, Kate in particular, as though she has some sort of papal-like infallibility thing going, despite you obviously thinking she is a liar. Many of her explanations just don’t work so it’s easier to deal with them than the alternatives others suggest!

deco nate

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Are only those who believe the McCanns killed their daughter open-minded then?

Are you willing to consider they might be innocent? If not why should I be willing to consider them guilty?

I have looked at the evidence as it is presented to us. I have watched The Truth Of The Lie, I am reading Kate's book, I watched Madeleine Was Here. I have considered all the information given and for me there just isn't anything that would make me suspicious.

Even the 'damning' evidence from the cadaver dogs isn't really that
'damning'.

soo much wrong with this post,starting with posters here.(no one has)sayin/belive they killed her....and ending in im reading HER book.ergo what she
says in print,must be true.just wait another few years till
the next book comes out,and read the changes in that from
this one.see what you have to say then.(and like all good works of
fiction that sell well,always has a follow up book)

AudreyHepburn

deco nate wrote: »

soo much wrong with this post,starting with posters here.(no one has)sayin/belive they killed her....and ending in im reading HER book.ergo what she
says in print,must be true.just wait another few years till
the next book comes out,and read the changes in that from
this one.see what you have to say then.(and like all good works of
fiction that sell well,always has a follow up book)

In fact many posters believe the McCanns killed Madeleine accidently, by giving her an overdose of sedative (despite there not being any evidence to suggest this).

I never said that just because Kate says something it has to be true. What I said was I have read her book, watch Amaral's documentry, read various reports on the case and I simply see nothing to convince me the McCanns are responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine.

I suppose you have absolute proof Kate's book is a work of fiction? Do you feel the same about Amaral's?

No of course not, he is infallible isn't he?

AudreyHepburn

maebee wrote: »

I never said that they killed their daughter. I don't believe they did. I believe that Madeleine died accidentally and that her parents covered it up.




Early days I DID consider that they were innocent but their actions gave me cause for suspicion and when I read the Final Report of the PJ, supported by the British police, I no longer considered them innocent.

So again you are not willing to consider them possibly innocent but you expect me to consider them possibly guilty?

How hypocritical of you.

Have you read the police files?

No. Have you?


.

If a sniffer dog indicated a bomb/explosive on a plane, would you get on it? The dogs indicated the presence of a corpse in that apartment. The McCanns dissed the dogs. They didn't want to know if someone had died in that apartment. They are all about defending themselves, nothing else.

There is no proof that the corpse is Madeleine's. And if it were it is possible whoever took her killed her in the apartment before leaving, perhaps while trying to stop her crying or calling for her parents.

Of course I am just speculating.

deco nate

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In fact many posters believe the McCanns killed Madeleine accidently, by giving her an overdose of sedative (despite there not being any evidence to suggest this).

I never said that just because Kate says something it has to be true. What I said was I have read her book, watch Amaral's documentry, read various reports on the case and I simply see nothing to convince me the McCanns are responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine.

I suppose you have absolute proof Kate's book is a work of fiction? Do you feel the same about Amaral's?

No of course not, he is infallible isn't he?

no he is not you are right there..yet neither are doctors that
should know better,seein that they see kids all the time
that have been,burned,scalded,ect(and these things can happen in a heartbeat), all the time.yet they
left kids alone all the while they went for food/on the piss
knowing what could happen!they failed their kids the moment they left those kids alone.infallible,mcc's?no much worse than that.yet
if they even said,just once..we are sorry for the hurt to those that
we thought may have had something to do with this and dint..we are
sorry.then maybe it would help their case.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Mistyeyes321

lugha wrote: »

I think when you analyse much of what you cite there (with the exception of the dog evidence) it doesn’t really add up to much in the way of evidence. Yes, much of what they have said and did would be rather strange things for innocent people to come out with. But they would also be rather strange things for guilty people to come out with. In short, all you can say is you have a strange couple!



:mad: Well I addressed that point actually. In short, and like many of Mrs M.s explanations, it doesn’t really fly IMO. Really the only way to dismiss the dog evidence is to argue that it is one of these cases where the dog is wrong. (Edit: Or if you fancy something jucier, the police planted the evidence)

BTW, I have just realised why you all treat the McCanns, Kate in particular, as though she has some sort of papal-like infallibility thing going, despite you obviously thinking she is a liar. Many of her explanations just don’t work so it’s easier to deal with them than the alternatives others suggest!

Sorry I haven't seen your post addressing this point...Yes I couldn't come up with anything other than what you mention...Police planting stuff I know it does happen & has in the past but I really don't buy this theory! I do however believe the dog evidence I just can't get past it....Not really with you on the Mrs m Papal thing could you explain it to me please?! & Who is all?! The only thing I believe is Mrs M isn't telling all the truth regarding Timelines so if that's calling her a Liar then I suppose I am! Having said that I'm not innocent of not telling a few Lie's in my time either but I can say Hand on Heart I have never lied regarding my Children & I'm not afraid to say it either unlike some I could mention!. No one has offered any alternative which one are you refering to? Do you mean the one the Mcs are saying? The Abduction Story?...:)

Mistyeyes321

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So again you are not willing to consider them possibly innocent but you expect me to consider them possibly guilty?

How hypocritical of you.




No. Have you?


.



There is no proof that the corpse is Madeleine's. And if it were it is possible whoever took her killed her in the apartment before leaving, perhaps while trying to stop her crying or calling for her parents.

Of course I am just speculating.

There is no proof it isn't either! Also no evidence what so ever she was abducted either absolutly nothing to say Madeleine was taken by a stranger! Infact no eveidence for anything the Mcs say!...I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of Sedating two babies then not bothering to do the very same with the child they intended taking?! It just doesn't make any sense what so ever...Along with the supposed timelines id say it's just a load of Bullshine tbh..! IMHO the timelines are the key here one reason imo why all the Tapas 9 stick by it. Is if it ever came out they had all left their babies from whatever time they went for Drinkies & Din Din's to whatever time they staggered home with no check's at all on any of them Babies & holding the Position's they do. Well it Speak's for itself really! What they should do is tell the truth because nearly everyone think's they Neglected them Babies including you. So just tell the truth because if someone really did take this Child then the Timeline is Crucial & by lying about it they're letting this Child down all over again...

camille262

alie wrote: »

I am reading their book at the moment, there are so many inconsistincies in her tale, i dont understand how a mother on findind one child missing could then leave the apartment and her other 2 kids there alone again, and on suspecting they were given a sedative not to have brought them to a hospital to have a blood test done. And to also be able to go jogging when she said herself she didnt eat for days and could barely move!!

Hi All,
Have just joined. I wouldn't buy the book as it would put money in the MCs pockets. I agree with your post. I believe that when it was suspected the twins had been given a sedative, the MCs refused to have them taken to hospital. That alone made me think about the MCs innocence. There are as we all know so many inconsistences in the the MCs statements. So many mysteries.

OMG Its EoinD

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Talk about kicking a dead horse.....

Maybe when they left their child alone ?

iamwhoiam

i cant deny that I am curious what Kate Mc Cann has written but like a few before me have said I wouldnt put money in their pockets either .
For me the one point out of many that jumps at me as being very odd is the fact that a GP / Aneasthetist and a Cardiac Consultant ( and Parents ) suspected their toddler twins were drugged and let them sleep on .Kate says openly that she checked if they were breathing in case they had been drugged and yet despite this lets them sleep on .
I find that mind boggling and in fact very very remiss of two people who suspecting a drugged child negleted to have them checked out .
Of all people they should know how to deal with a drug overdose in paeds and it sure isnt letting them sleep on without knowing what they have ingested

sunflower27

iamwhoiam wrote: »

i cant deny that I am curious what Kate Mc Cann has written but like a few before me have said I wouldnt put money in their pockets either .
For me the one point out of many that jumps at me as being very odd is the fact that a GP / Aneasthetist and a Cardiac Consultant ( and Parents ) suspected their toddler twins were drugged and let them sleep on .Kate says openly that she checked if they were breathing in case they had been drugged and yet despite this lets them sleep on .
I find that mind boggling and in fact very very remiss of two people who suspecting a drugged child negleted to have them checked out .
Of all people they should know how to deal with a drug overdose in paeds and it sure isnt letting them sleep on without knowing what they have ingested

Yes, and also what abductor who has been watching the room and knows the parents constantly check :rolleyes: is going to take the time to sedate three small children and then climb out a window with the biggest one leaving no evidence and not get into a waiting car, but wrap her in a blanket and stroll down the street?

iamwhoiam

sunflower27 wrote: »

Yes, and also what abductor who has been watching the room and knows the parents constantly check :rolleyes: is going to take the time to sedate three small children and then climb out a window with the biggest one leaving no evidence and not get into a waiting car, but wrap her in a blanket and stroll down the street?

And what toddler when woken up will willingly take a medicine from a total stranger and not a drop spat or dribbled .

lugha

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Police planting stuff I know it does happen & has in the past but I really don't buy this theory!

I don’t subscribe to it either. But if you think about it, it is not really that far fetched. I.e. the police were under tremendous pressure in a very high profile case, they might have been virtually certain that the McCanns were involved but knew they had no proof. Their own careers, or at least reputations, might have suffered and two people who should be facing justice would walk away.

Is it out of the question that one of them, despite having an unblemished professional career, might have done something that was technically illegal but which led to best outcome that could be hoped for in the circumstances? They had means, motive and opportunity, as the Americans like to say!

This is rather similar to the case being made as to why the McCann’s did not report the accidental death of their daughter. Now, you can argue that this scenario is far more likely than the former one with the police planting evidence. But it is a stretch to say this is probably what did happen, but the planting of evidence is out of the question?

Again I say, it is not the explanation I favour. If the “dog” evidence is to be dismissed, it must be one of those occasions when the dog is wrong. You might say that this is unlikely, but it is also unlikely that a couple could (or would) go to dinner when their child is lying dead in their apartment.
Whatever emerges as the truth in this story, if anything ever does, it will involve something or other than is very unlikely.

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Not really with you on the Mrs m Papal thing could you explain it to me please?!

Well as an example, if someone suggests that the abduction theory might explain things, we will be told there is no evidence of an abductor ….., coming through the window. Fine, so the abductor came through the door and left exactly the amount of evidence you would expect, which is none. But then we will be told, that didn’t happen …. Because Kate says so! Scenarios are being dismissed on the basis that the McCanns "think" that they didn't happen.

Chicke

So they risked the health of their remaining children by not getting them tested in hospital.what kind if parents are these?
Anything to protect themselves,even at the expense of their children.what does this tell us about what they are capable of in relation to Madeline

About the man leaving with the child that tanner saw,has anyone ever come forward saying it was him?reason being if no one has come forward to give an innocent explanation,then either that per so is guilty as charged or doesn't exist!

But the body?how was it taken away.there were no cars rented by them or friends at that stage.there was the sighting by the smiths but hasn't Gerry McCann been allibied as being in the tapas bar for when this happened.certainly when Kate returned after 10 ,Gerry was atvthevrestautant then.to me this is the impossibility.

dark crystal

Just a few points:

Some people are constanty saying there is no evidence of an abductor... what evidence are you after, exactly?

Fingerprints...? No criminal would be stupid enough to leave those.

DNA...? The crime scene was a veritable zoo, having never been sealed off for evidence by the police.

Witnesses...? The fact there are no witnesses to the crime, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are also no witnesses coming forward to say they saw either of the McCanns dump their daughter anywhere -The Smiths testimony is just as unreliable to me as Jane Tanner's evidence is to others - there certainly was no positive identification of Gerry McCann, just someone who may have looked similar on a dark evening (also, no DNA or remains were ever found on or near the beach they claim to have seen someone heading in the direction of). There are also no witnesses who have found her body - in four years! That seems pretty miraculous to me.


I also asked a few pages back there for someone to give me some viable explaination as to how, where and when they think either of the McCanns could have disposed of Madeleine's body in the timeframe available. Still no theory that could be condsidered even remotely possible has been offered to this question.


The cadaver dogs evidence - again, not as credible as some may suggest, though if people wish to lend so much credence to it, who is to say the abductor didn't leave the scent themselves? Perhaps Madeleine was not their first victim?
Also, Madeleine would have to have been dead for a few hours to emit such a scent. Where on earth did the McCanns hide her for a few hours, while they were eating dinner and others were checking on the apartment?
If you believe she was dead a while before someone noticed, it brings us back to the timeline theory again - either the parents knew of her death and continued eating dinner as if nothing happened and allowed others to look in on her whilst one of them managed to disappear only long enough not to draw suspicion and hide/bury the body where no one would see it (all whilst acting completely and utterly normally, of course) in a place where it still hasn't been discovered to this day OR Kate discovered her child's body at 10.30 and managed to hide her body somewhere in the apartment before calling for help and leaving it there, whilst the police swarmed the apartment. She then would have had to find someway to dispose of the body without the police, public or media spotting her or Gerry doing it. She would have had to have been one cold hearted, mercenary sociopath to do such a thing...

Also, did the police ever find any evidence of drugging; i.e, a bottle of calpol, or any other paraphenalia that would suggest a drugging of the children took place (although Calpol would hardly be considered a potent enough sedative to kill a child)? if not, where is the theory that Madeleine was drugged coming from exactly?
Kate mentions it also, but has she ever said why she believes this theory?

alie

sunflower27 wrote: »

I also believed at first that Madeleine had been abducted but there are just way too many inconsistencies in my mind - the 'they've taken her', the disturbing vital evidence like taking the toy that Kate said the abductor must have moved and washing it, the shutters, the not answering questions, their refusal to accept any different events to what they perceived to have happened (when they were not even around the room to see anything), the other children not waking despite all the crazy commotion, the sniffer dogs...

Yes i agree. and the fact she only put her hand on her "precious" babies to see if they were breathing,wow alarm bells,, i feel she is a very cold person , these kids were IVF, but they were not treated as precious kids. And if Gerry dislikes the sun so much , why portugal?

alie

sunflower27 wrote: »

Yes, and also what abductor who has been watching the room and knows the parents constantly check :rolleyes: is going to take the time to sedate three small children and then climb out a window with the biggest one leaving no evidence and not get into a waiting car, but wrap her in a blanket and stroll down the street?

They have been sedated earlier in the day or it could have been a build up of sedation from the previous nights.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

Just a few points:

Some people are constanty saying there is no evidence of an abductor... what evidence are you after, exactly?

Fingerprints...? No criminal would be stupid enough to leave those.

DNA...? The crime scene was a veritable zoo, having never been sealed off for evidence by the police.

Witnesses...? The fact there are no witnesses to the crime, doesn't mean it didn't happen. There are also no witnesses coming forward to say they saw either of the McCanns dump their daughter anywhere -The Smiths testimony is just as unreliable to me as Jane Tanner's evidence is to others - there certainly was no positive identification of Gerry McCann, just someone who may have looked similar on a dark evening (also, no DNA or remains were ever found on or near the beach they claim to have seen someone heading in the direction of). There are also no witnesses who have found her body - in four years! That seems pretty miraculous to me.


I also asked a few pages back there for someone to give me some viable explaination as to how, where and when they think either of the McCanns could have disposed of Madeleine's body in the timeframe available. Still no theory that could be condsidered even remotely possible has been offered to this question.


The cadaver dogs evidence - again, not as credible as some may suggest, though if people wish to lend so much credence to it, who is to say the abductor didn't leave the scent themselves? Perhaps Madeleine was not their first victim?
Also, Madeleine would have to have been dead for a few hours to emit such a scent. Where on earth did the McCanns hide her for a few hours, while they were eating dinner and others were checking on the apartment?
If you believe she was dead a while before someone noticed, it brings us back to the timeline theory again - either the parents knew of her death and continued eating dinner as if nothing happened and allowed others to look in on her whilst one of them managed to disappear only long enough not to draw suspicion and hide/bury the body where no one would see it (all whilst acting completely and utterly normally, of course) in a place where it still hasn't been discovered to this day OR Kate discovered her child's body at 10.30 and managed to hide her body somewhere in the apartment before calling for help and leaving it there, whilst the police swarmed the apartment. She then would have had to find someway to dispose of the body without the police, public or media spotting her or Gerry doing it. She would have had to have been one cold hearted, mercenary sociopath to do such a thing...

Also, did the police ever find any evidence of drugging; i.e, a bottle of calpol, or any other paraphenalia that would suggest a drugging of the children took place (although Calpol would hardly be considered a potent enough sedative to kill a child)? if not, where is the theory that Madeleine was drugged coming from exactly?
Kate mentions it also, but has she ever said why she believes this theory?

No I think a parent in that position would be one not thinking straight and who could make a massive mistake due to panic.

If one or both of the McCanns did have something to do with the child going missing, I believe that there was some kind of freak accident that caused the death of the child and that pure panic caused anything that followed.


Now that is only IF one or both knew about it.


As for your comment about sleeping medication or similar, it is in the police records that such medication was found in the McCann's items, and when a search was done in the McCann's second apartment during their time in Portugal futher sleeping medication from the UK was found along with confidential CEOP manuals, books about murder like The Interpretation of Murder, this information was released in September 2008.


The CEOP manuals are a bit odd as they are not something a standard member of the public could lay their hands on and are generally restricted to people of a certain level in political or police circles.



Here is the tv footage of the apartment search that was released in late 2008 and a summary of what was said.

Quick Summary:

Images of the McCanns second apartment in Praia da Luz, Algarve, Portugal. The Portuguese police searches the McCanns apartment and finds several sleeping medicaments, confidential CEOP manuals, books about murder like The Interpretation of Murder, and smell of corpse in the cuddle toy which belonged to Madeleine. Video released by Spanish Antena 3 TV. 10 September 2008

Antena3 Article: The McCanns kept numerous medicines which provoked sleepiness


Given the repeated denial of the British police to send different reports about the married couple, the Portuguese police made a profile searching throughout the McCanns second house, in Praia da Luz.

This way, officers accompanied by two police psychologists, carry out a meticulous search in the main bedroom [the parents' bedroom].

In a case of abduction, the family circle is always investigated. The police were surprised on having seen the bedroom. Kate seems to be mourning. In her small bedside table are many photos of Maddy [sic] surrounded with rosaries and a Bible, which had bookmarked, with a picture a fragment of the Old Testament in which it could be read: " "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die" [2 Samuel 12:14]".

At the other side of the bed, on Gerry's bedside table the attention is given to, between other books, "The interpretation of Murder ". In the study [office space] where Gerry writes his blog and where he works at the campaign to find his daughter, another surprise: CEOP manuals, books with access restricted to police and governmental entities.

Before this discovery, Mark Harrison, the British police officer sent from the United Kingdom to coordinate the case, does not give credit. He wonders how many married couples had access to these manuals, which are exclusively reserved to police officers.

The Portuguese Officers confirm in this way their suspicions regarding the contacts which are provided to the McCanns, which for them is translated in a big political pressure that to their judgement, limits the investigation.

Also, the police find numerous medicines, which they examine in search of these sedatives that they fear that were given to the children by the McCanns on the night of the 3rd of May. They also register the side effects caused by the medicines that they find, and verify that the majority of them provoke sleepiness. They examine as well the drawers, closets, as well as the twins' room and that no longer sleep in cots but in beds.

The final report of the process, in contrast to the images included in the same report, state that independently of the curious and morbid conclusions, the only fact that one can determine, as such, is the disparate behavior of the couple at the time of facing Madeleine's disappearance.

Source: Antena3 (Spanish)

Matthew23

did they find any fingerprints that they dont know who they came from a the house?