Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

dark crystal

Sorry Kess, don't want to keep quoting long posts

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.

Which medications were they? I couldn't make it out from that video (who filmed that video btw??)

Were they specifically sleeping tablets and if so, when were they presecribed? I mean, could they have been given to Kate after the incident to help her sleep?
Could there have been travel sickness or hay fever medication there (many medications can have the side effect of making one sleepy, nothing sinister in that)

The article states this is a video of the second apartment, not the one from where Madeleine went missing, so any of these medications could have been prescribed to the McCanns after the disappearance.

ISDW

I'm astounded that a police force release this stuff to the general public. How is that legal? Also, would that not impede any prosecution if it was ever proved that the McCanns did have something to do with her disappearance?

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

Sorry Kess, don't want to keep quoting long posts



Which medications were they? I couldn't make it out from that video (who filmed that video btw??)

Were they specifically sleeping tablets and if so, when were they presecribed? I mean, could they have been given to Kate after the incident to help her sleep?
Could there have been travel sickness or hay fever medication there (many medications can have the side effect of making one sleepy, nothing sinister in that)

The article states this is a video of the second apartment, not the one from where Madeleine went missing, so any of these medications could have been prescribed to the McCanns after the disappearance.

The police report said that a number of medication for sleeping purposes only dated prior to the disappearance was on the premises.

I would have to go and find where I read it but it gave the actual brands/types of sleeping meds. Some was over the counter stuff and the other was perscription only.

Now that does not mean the McCanns gave their kids stuff to make/help them sleep, it just means the medication was got before the night of the child being reported missing.

Kess73

ISDW wrote: »

I'm astounded that a police force release this stuff to the general public. How is that legal? Also, would that not impede any prosecution if it was ever proved that the McCanns did have something to do with her disappearance?

The footage was released some month after the case was declared archived, and from what I remember only the very basic footage on show was released after claims were made that the police had never searched the second apartment.

None of the footage was released whilst it was an active case. But it did highlight things like the CEOP manuels which are not meant to be available to members of the public as it would give them access to information on investigation procedures and various protocols not meant for public comsumption.

For Gerry McCann to have had those manuels (and they were from Britain) just lying about in his apartment, someone pretty highly ranked had to have gotten them for him.

It is also a breach of security in the UK to have one of those in public let alone have one unsecured in an apartment in a foreign country, and at no point has information being given as to how he got those manuels and how they got out of the UK. What was also not answered when the police asked, was if the manuels got to Portugal beofre or after the child went missing.

Either way Gerry had in his possession manuels with exact details of how the police in another country could operate and exact details of the steps and guidelines those forces had to follow.

Kess73

Matthew23 wrote: »

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

Nope, and what is more they could not find Gerry's fingerprints on any part of the shutters despite him claiming that he opened and shut it from the outside after he found out the child was missing.

The only fingerprints on the window and shutter (and on the inside only) were those of Kate

sunflower27

Kess73 wrote: »

Nope, and what is more they could not find Gerry's fingerprints on any part of the shutters despite him claiming that he opened and shut it from the outside after he found out the child was missing.

The only fingerprints on the window and shutter (and on the inside only) were those of Kate

So, just like the abductor made sure not to leave any fingerprints, Gerry miraculously managed to wipe all of his off but left Kate's. :rolleyes:

iamwhoiam

sunflower27 wrote: »

So, just like the abductor made sure not to leave any fingerprints, Gerry miraculously managed to wipe all of his off but left Kate's. :rolleyes:

Or they wernt there in the first place . The PJ have stated that the window shutter was not tampared with and no prints were found on the outside ,Gerry still insists he tried to open the shutter from outside .Yet the lichen wasnt even disturbed on the sills .

Despite it being clearly outruled that the shutter could be lifted from outside or in fact that it was jemmied Gerry continues to state that it was .As recently as the Late Late he once again stated that the intruder tampered with the window .

sunflower27

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Or they wernt there in the first place . The PJ have stated that the window shutter was not tampared with and no prints were found on the outside ,Gerry still insists he tried to open the shutter from outside .Yet the lichen wasnt even disturbed on the sills .

Despite it being clearly outruled that the shutter could be lifted from outside or in fact that it was jemmied Gerry continues to state that it was .As recently as the Late Late he once again stated that the intruder tampered with the window .

So basically Gerry is lying through his teeth and no-one has the b*lls to mention it to him in an interview :rolleyes:

iamwhoiam

sunflower27 wrote: »

So basically Gerry is lying through his teeth and no-one has the b*lls to mention it to him in an interview :rolleyes:

Looks like it could well be .The PJ and Warners ruled it out and the window showed no signs of tampering ,Its well documented yet Gerry continues to quote his story .Ryan Tubridy didnt even question it when Gerry once again rolled it out
Are you rolling eyes at me or at whom ?As your last two posts have the rolling eyes ,so who is it aimed at

prinz

lugha wrote: »

True. The stories are inconsistent. I don’t dispute that. I ask what is the most plausible scenario (i.e. McCanns involved or not) that would give rise to such inconsistencies. I argue that such inconsistencies are more likely to follow from the McCanns being innocent rather than guilty...

You have absolutely nothing to base that argument on other than 'I'd expect there to be inconsistencies'. So would I, minor ones. Not major story changes.

Your ridiculous attempts to explain away other issues surrounding the case are hilarious verging on trolling at this stage.

lugha wrote: »

So no, you have not addressed it. When you make an argument that mixed up and conflicting accounts is more typical of what you would expect from a guilty party than an innocent one, then you will have addressed my point. ...

How hard is this to understand. I have stated..

(i) Minor inconsistencies between various witness statements are to be expected and completely normal with people who have nothing to hide.

(ii) Major inconsistencies and the same witness changing a description of someone they saw are not to be expected if all parties are being totally truthful.

Now read over them again and see where I mentioned guilt or innocence in the above explanation?

sunflower27

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Looks like it could well be .The PJ and Warners ruled it out and the window showed no signs of tampering ,Its well documented yet Gerry continues to quote his story .Ryan Tubridy didnt even question it when Gerry once again rolled it out
Are you rolling eyes at me or at whom ?

I'm rolling my eyes at the fact the McCann's can continue to roll out a story that is totally ridiculous. Just because Gerry is the father and said that is what happened doesn't mean it did - and certainly not in my mind as I believe he is covering his arse and that is why he refuses to deviate from his story of events.

If his prints were not on the shutters - he lied; if the window could not be jammied from the outside to let an intruder in - he lied; and if there was no disturbance at all to the window ledge (and hell, you'd expect there to be something if a grown man was carrying a child out through it) - he lied.

ETA - and as he wasn't even near the room when the child was supposedly abducted, why is anyone taking his story as Gospel anyway. He didn't see any of this happen and if his prints were nowhere, the shutters could not have been opened from the outside and nothing was disturbed, why would anyone believe his story anyway. Total fabricated story made up to make the 'abduction' theory plausible - and yet so full of holes.

His whole story stinks to high heaven.

iamwhoiam

sunflower27 wrote: »

I'm rolling my eyes at the fact the McCann's can continue to roll out a story that is totally ridiculous. Just because Gerry is the father and said that is what happened doesn't mean it did - and certainly not in my mind as I believe he is covering his arse and that is why he refuses to deviate from his story of events.

If his prints were not on the shutters - he lied; if the window could not be jammied from the outside to let an intruder in - he lied; and if there was no disturbance at all to the window ledge (and hell, you'd expect there to be something if a grown man was carrying a child out through it) - he lied.

His whole story stinks to high heaven.

Oh Ok , thought you were rolling them at me !

sunflower27

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Oh Ok , thought you were rolling them at me !

Sorry, not at all. I should have made it clearer.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

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.

That part of the explanation of any culpability in the part of the McCanns part is possible. It is when you try to construct a plausible scenario of how the whole thing might have played out that you run into problems.

Suppose Madeleine did die accidentally earlier in the evening and that the McCanns did decide to conceal it. From there, it is just one thing after another that screams implausibility.

First, the go to dinner! They don’t text their friends and make some excuse for not coming to give them time to deal with a massive problem, they go to dinner!

Once there, they succeed in containing any show of emotion that they have just found their first born dead! Or possibly, the have the neck and the confidence to ask their friends to take an enormous personal and professional risk, to cover up their irresponsibility. And all of the friends agree!

Then despite being bright, and in this scenario, conniving people, they haven’t the wit to concoct a plausible and consistent shaggy dog story to tell the police when the time comes!

And on it goes. It is simply one utter implausibility after the other. I have yet to hear a hypothetical account (forget about evidence or proof) which involves the McCanns that remotely “works”. People only consider what is possible in the scenarios they construct, they seem to be totally disinterested in what is plausible.

There may be an explanation that has the McCanns involved, but for me the least implausible one if still the abductor one. Do you have one?

prinz

lugha wrote: »

they seem to be totally disinterested in what is plausible.

The irony.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

That part of the explanation of any culpability in the part of the McCanns part is possible. It is when you try to construct a plausible scenario of how the whole thing might have played out that you run into problems.

Suppose Madeleine did die accidentally earlier in the evening and that the McCanns did decide to conceal it. From there, it is just one thing after another that screams implausibility.

First, the go to dinner! They don’t text their friends and make some excuse for not coming to give them time to deal with a massive problem, they go to dinner!

Once there, they succeed in containing any show of emotion that they have just found their first born dead! Or possibly, the have the neck and the confidence to ask their friends to take an enormous personal and professional risk, to cover up their irresponsibility. And all of the friends agree!

Then despite being bright, and in this scenario, conniving people, they haven’t the wit to concoct a plausible and consistent shaggy dog story to tell the police when the time comes!

And on it goes. It is simply one utter implausibility after the other. I have yet to hear a hypothetical account (forget about evidence or proof) which involves the McCanns that remotely “works”. People only consider what is possible in the scenarios they construct, they seem to be totally disinterested in what is plausible.

There may be an explanation that has the McCanns involved, but for me the least implausible one if still the abductor one. Do you have one?

Can you explain the situation with the shutters. The ones Gerry said he opened and yet their is no evidence at all that he did? I mean, did he put gloves on to open them in the heat? Or that there was no disturbance that someone climbed through it - or that indeed they could be opened.

How is it possible that none of Gerry's prints were there?

Have you not seen programmes where people are able to go into shock and cover up crimes? They are a dime a dozen.

How could they have fabricated an abduction story if they refused to go to dinner? If you believe the cover-up theory as plenty of people do, it makes perfect sense they went to that meal.

People are putting out scenarios because their story does not add up on too many levels.

lugha

prinz wrote: »

You have absolutely nothing to base that argument on other than 'I'd expect there to be inconsistencies'. So would I, minor ones. Not major story changes.

If there had been some conspiracy involving the McCanns and their friends I would expect them to concoct consistent and plausible alibis. This is what I would expect if there was a conspiracy. But it isn’t what we observed, so that tends to suggest that there wasn’t a conspiracy. You keep telling me that there were major inconsistencies. Precisely, there were. Which is the opposite to what you would expect. I am sorry, I cannot make my point any clearer than that.

prinz wrote: »

Your ridiculous attempts to explain away other issues surrounding the case are hilarious verging on trolling at this stage.

Well its not. I think if you want to present a credible account of what might have happened, you are obliged to give some account of the implausible parts of your account, which is what I do. Of course, the alternative it to simply ignore the awkward bits, an approach preferred by some here.
For example, in relation to the doctor who witnessed what she interpreted as paedophilic tendencies in two of the men central to all of this, I suggested that she actually say was an innocent game. A response (well thanked!) suggested that this was implausible, but declined (as subsequently did the thankers) to offer a reason why two paedophiles would be so candid in public.

Perhaps you could offer a possible account of what might have happened where every element of your version is plausible?

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

Can you explain the situation with the shutters. The ones Gerry said he opened and yet their is no evidence at all that he did? I mean, did he put gloves on to open them in the heat? Or that there was no disturbance that someone climbed through it - or that indeed they could be opened.

I have said repeatedly I pay no attention to anything the McCanns or their friends say. In terms of their worth as eye-witnessed, well there is not very much of worth there. And in terms of their theories or ideas of what might have happened, I don’t see why their views should carry any more weight that anyone else. It is almost exclusively your side that continue to cite what the McCanns say and think.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

If there had been some conspiracy involving the McCanns and their friends I would expect them to concoct consistent and plausible alibis. This is what I would expect if there was a conspiracy.

Yet you ignore what I and others have said in relation to your fanciful conspiracy. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy where all of them sat down and got their stories straight, and learned and prepared answers. However there is a conspiracy as far as different people telling different stories and muddying the waters for some reason.

lugha wrote: »

You keep telling me that there were major inconsistencies. Precisely, there were. Which is the opposite to what you would expect. I am sorry, I cannot make my point any clearer than that..

Your 'point' is total, complete and utter nonsense. You'd expect an eye-witness to change their description of someone they saw numerous times? You'd expect two people who met each other to vary in the length of the meeting from 30 seconds to an hour?

lugha wrote: »

Of course, the alternative it to simply ignore the awkward bits, an approach preferred by some here...

You mean like labelling the awkward bits as oddities and ignoring them?

lugha wrote: »

For example, in relation to the doctor who witnessed what she interpreted as paedophilic tendencies in two of the men central to all of this, I suggested that she actually say was an innocent game. A response (well thanked!) suggested that this was implausible, but declined (as subsequently did the thankers) to offer a reason why two paedophiles would be so candid in public...

Do you realise how ridiculous you are coming across in your 'suggestions'? Offer a different theory to some things fine, but when you try to explain away everything as innocent or a mere 'oddity' then you lose credibility.

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps you could offer a possible account of what might have happened where every element of your version is plausible?

I don't have a "version" ffs, but I am not stupid enough to think that the McCanns and their friends are being completely honest about what went on.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

I have said repeatedly I pay no attention to anything the McCanns or their friends say.

Great start to trying to understand what happened that night. Pay no attention to the people most involved. Well done Poirot Clouseau.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

I have said repeatedly I pay no attention to anything the McCanns or their friends say. In terms of their worth as eye-witnessed, well there is not very much of worth there. And in terms of their theories or ideas of what might have happened, I don’t see why their views should carry any more weight that anyone else. It is almost exclusively your side that continue to cite what the McCanns say and think.

So it's quite apparant Gerry lied about the shutters and yet, knowing this, you are prepared to believe a child went out the window that he said he opened but didn't.

What do you make of their lies? Do you not think it calls into question their abduction theory at all?

Seriously, I can't see how you can just overlook the blatant lies and not think 'how odd'.... and then look at all the other inconsistencies and question that the reason they are there is because they are lies as well.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

I have said repeatedly I pay no attention to anything the McCanns or their friends say..

If I pay no attention to what the McCanns or anybody else says the only plausible conclusion is that Madeleine floated away out to sea tied to a giant Mickey Mouse balloon. Plausible.

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps you could offer a possible account of what might have happened where every element of your version is plausible?

No , I dont have a version either ,In fact versions are made up and speculative so why do you want us to speculate ? How would it sound if a detective had a version ?

I dont have a clue where Madeleine is or how she got there , I am guessing that you dont either ,only one or two people most likely do .But I do know that I am very sceptical about alot of the versions the Mc Canns have announced as they are just as clueless as we are ( I hope ) '

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

So it's quite apparant Gerry lied about the shutters and yet, knowing this, you are prepared to believe a child went out the window that he said he opened but didn't.

No I do not. I believe she went out the door. It is those on the other side that try to insist any abductor came in the window.

sunflower27 wrote: »

What do you make of their lies? Do you not think it calls into question their abduction theory at all?

Once again! I pay zero attention to their abduction theory. Or anything else they say.
I can see why they are anxious to play up the abductor through the window line, it would make them look less culpable. Do you not think that if they had been somehow involved, and subsequently wanted to peddle the abductor line, that they might have done a job on the window before calling the police?

lugha

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No , I dont have a version either ,In fact versions are made up and speculative so why do you want us to speculate ? How would it sound if a detective had a version ?

Because we can then look at all the versions and see which is the most plausible, or in this case, which is the least implausible.
For me, the abductor theory works better than any other one.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

No I do not. I believe she went out the door. It is those on the other side that try to insist any abductor came in the window.


Once again! I pay zero attention to their abduction theory. Or anything else they say.
I can see why they are anxious to play up the abductor through the window line, it would make them look less culpable. Do you not think that if they had been somehow involved, and subsequently wanted to peddle the abductor line, that they might have done a job on the window before calling the police?

More curious, why are they convinced an abductor went out the window when they didn't jammie it.

And do you not think that perhaps it would have looked a bit odd that gerry could be seen fiddling with a window and then his wife is screaming that someone took their child out of it a matter of an hour(s) later??? I mean, anyhone could have walked past and seen Gerry fiddling with a window at that time of evening.

Chicke

Just read a small bit of the truth of the lie and seems the pj thought that little girl died behind sofa where there was blood and then moved to press in her parents room,cadaver was detected here but not blood.
Where us the alibi for Gerry between 10 and 11 before police came and presumably body moved?
Also what I dont understand is that not only were there no fingerprints found but no traces of gloves .now how can that be?

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

More curious, why are they convinced an abductor went out the window when they didn't jammie it.

What is even more curious is why people continue to pay so much attention to what the McCanns think happened. If they were not involved, all they can do is offer theories like everybody else. They don’t know.

sunflower27 wrote: »

And do you not think that perhaps it would have looked a bit odd that gerry could be seen fiddling with a window and then his wife is screaming that someone took their child out of it a matter of an hour(s) later??? I mean, anyhone could have walked past and seen Gerry fiddling with a window at that time of evening.

A lot less odd that taking a dead child from the apartment at some point and hiding it somewhere. I don’t think it would be very difficult to make a lock look like it was tampered with (though ironically that might ultimately cast suspicion on him at it was unlikely that someone came in the window)

iamwhoiam

There is also a missing tennis/ gym/ sports bag belonging to Gerry ,as far as I know till this day it has never turned up .

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

Because we can then look at all the versions and see which is the most plausible, or in this case, which is the least implausible.
For me, the abductor theory works better than any other one.

How is the abduction scenario any more plausible? No-one saw anyone going in a window or the front door, or coming out of either.

Would an abductor really just walk down a street with a child wrapped in a blanket and not be seen and be able to be identified? And I don't mean someone changing what they saw after their first initial statement, which completely brings into doubt the credibility of such a statement.