Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

prinz

lugha wrote: »

What is even more curious is why people continue to pay so much attention to what the McCanns think happened.

You think it's curious why people pay them attention when they are amongst the prime suspects? Is there something I am missing here?

Chicke

Very interesting about the missing sports bag and very sad

lugha

prinz wrote: »

You think it's curious why people pay them attention when they are amongst the prime suspects? Is there something I am missing here?

If I was to be as rude to you as you are being to me I might say you are missing quite a lot. :P

In relation to your question, I am not saying you should not pay attention to them as suspects, I am saying you should pay no attention to what they think happened. If they were not involved, their views don't carry anymore merit that yours or mine.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

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.

No, but you cannot conclude it didn't happen. At some point someone took Madeline from the apartment, dead or alive, and there were no witnesses to that.

For me, the abduction theory is the most plausible because there is only one major problem with it, albeit a big one, which is the dog evidence. I know people see things like Kate's cry of "they've taken her" and other such things as also constituting evidence against this theory, but I simply don't think it is evidence.

Any version I have heard which implicates the McCanns is just much more implausible.

dark crystal

Wikipedia have some very interesting facts about the case on there. Also, it's a neutral site and therefore, isn't biased either way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

In an effort to rebut accusations that she was on medication at the time of the disappearance, hair from Kate was tested in November. Toxicology tests showed no evidence that she had taken drugs in the past eight months. The twins were also tested for sedatives. No traces of sedatives were recorded......In early February 2008, Alípio Ribeiro, the national director of the PJ, said that there "perhaps should have been another assessment" before the McCanns were declared arguidos

Other suspects

The Portuguese police disclosed information, on 25 May 2007, about another possible suspect: this was a reference to a middle-build Caucasian, approximately 178 cm (5 ft 10 in) tall. However, the height of the man was subsequently corrected to that given on the Portuguese press release as 170 cm (5 ft 7 in). The man, aged between 35 and 40, was seen at 21:30 on 3 May, by a close friend of the McCanns, but this information was only made public two and half weeks later.[96][97][98] According to Chief Police Officer Olegário de Sousa, the man was carrying a child, or something which might have resembled a child. He fitted the description of a suspect being hunted by Spanish police for the kidnappings of Sara Morales, 14, and 7-year-old Yeremi Vargas, in the Canary Islands.[99]
Detectives tried to trace a British man who left the harbour in his yacht shortly after the disappearance, after having moored there for two years. A witness reported seeing a man carrying a child in his arms down to the marina, hours after Madeleine disappeared. On 29 May, detectives questioned four boat owners, three of them English, whose vessels were moored at the marina in Lagos, a town about five miles (8 km) from Praia da Luz.[100]
A mystery sample of DNA was found, on 1 June, in the bedroom from where Madeleine disappeared. The DNA did not match that of the McCanns, their three children nor that of Murat. The PJ handed the sample over to the national forensic science laboratories, the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal, and stated that there is a new suspect.[101] In early August there was a suggested link with Urs Hans Von Aesch who had been on holiday in the area around the time that Madeleine disappeared. Von Aesch, a resident of Benimantell, Spain, who was implicated by Swiss police with the disappearance of five-year-old Ylenia Lenhard from Appenzell, Switzerland, had recently committed suicide.[102][103]
The occupants of the flat above that from which Madeleine disappeared reported an intruder who apparently had entered with a key. There had been a similar burglary in the complex some weeks earlier. On 17 August, search warrants were signed for the home of a new suspect.[104]
Briton Raymond Hewlett, who had been jailed for sexual offences against young girls, was, in May 2009, a person of interest. Hewlett denied any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance and agreed to meet investigators working for the McCanns.[105][106] Subsequently, he claimed to have seen Madeleine before her disappearance but required payment if he was to help the investigators.[107] He did, though, voluntarily give police in Germany a DNA sample.[108] Hewlett died, of natural causes, in December 2009.[109]
In August 2009 it emerged that, 72 hours after Madeleine disappeared, two British men were approached, in Barcelona, by a woman who reportedly asked "Are you here to deliver my new daughter?" The woman, who was described as a 'Victoria Beckham lookalike', had an Australian accent and spoke fluent Spanish or Catalan.[110][111] An E-fit picture was released showing a woman with short, spiky hair.[112]
In February 2011, a private investigator said he had identified two key suspects in the Madeleine disappearance and believed she had possibly been taken to the United States.[113][114] A 36-year-old man told a newspaper that he had informed police that McCann was taken by a Portuguese pedophile ring that hunts children in the Algarve region then proceeds to smuggle them out of the country.[115] McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told media that the pedophile ring lead had to be taken with caution.[116]

Just goes to show how many other suspects may actually be in the frame, rather than just the McCanns.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

If I was to be as rude to you as you are being to me I might say you are missing quite a lot. :P
In relation to your question, I am not saying you should not pay attention to them as suspects, I am saying you should pay no attention to what they think happened. If they were not involved, their views don't carry anymore merit that yours or mine.

If they were not involved. If.

lugha wrote: »

For me, the abduction theory is the most plausible because there is only one major problem with it, albeit a big one, which is the dog evidence..

Or you know the lack of any other physical evidence at the scene, credible eyewitness evidence, any sort of other suspicious activity in the area at the time.... the only people who have consistently put out the abduction theory... are, you guessed it, the McCanns. There is nothing credible to back up this theory whatsoever, that's not to say it didn't happen, perhaps it did, but there is far more evidence that between the McCanns and their friends someone is covering something up. That at present is the only real lead in the case.

The occupants of the flat above that from which Madeleine disappeared reported an intruder who apparently had entered with a key. There had been a similar burglary in the complex some weeks earlier

Apart from someone known to Madeleine, I think the above is the most likely scenario. Someone who entered the apartment probably to rob the place, but not with the intention of abducting anyone.

Chicke

What concerns me is not what they think happened but the lies they have told.
A lot of the lies they have told can be explained by their desire to appear innocent or to protect themselves and their friends from disrepute
But how in earth how can you explain away their lie about the open window which to me represented at the very least a distraction to the police in their search for the abductor of their precious daughter

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

No, but you cannot conclude it didn't happen. At some point someone took Madeline from the apartment, dead or alive, and there were no witnesses to that.

For me, the abduction theory is the most plausible because there is only one major problem with it, albeit a big one, which is the dog evidence. I know people see things like Kate's cry of "they've taken her" and other such things as also constituting evidence against this theory, but I simply don't think it is evidence.

Any version I have heard which implicates the McCanns is just much more implausible.

And yet, it would have been a lot less obvious if a child was taken out in a bag and not out a window or door in a blanket and not been seen.

I agree 'the've taken her' is not evidence, nor is contaminating the abduction site, nor washing her child's toy that Kate claims an abductor must have moved up to the window-ledge, nor are all the inconsistencies in the timeline, or the children not waking during the commotion, or a missing sports bag. One of these things may be strange but ALL of them together.... to dismiss them is naive in my opinion.

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

No, but you cannot conclude it didn't happen. At some point someone took Madeline from the apartment, dead or alive, and there were no witnesses to that.

For me, the abduction theory is the most plausible because there is only one major problem with it, albeit a big one, which is the dog evidence. I know people see things like Kate's cry of "they've taken her" and other such things as also constituting evidence against this theory, but I simply don't think it is evidence.

Any version I have heard which implicates the McCanns is just much more implausible.

Have you any theories if the abduction scenario is most plausable why the Mc Canns have made odd statements about windows , why they didnt co operate whith the PJ ? Why the twins slept through mayhem and why Kate didnt take them to an A+E despite claiming she tought they were drugged / Why the group are so cagey with answers ? Why they seem to chop and change as the story changes and to suit the story ?

Personally I have no clue what happened Madeleine ,. I feel she either was abducted or had an accident .But The Mc Canns behaviour if she was taken and they have nothing to hide is odd in the extreme . I dont know why it would be so if they have nothing all to do with it .

AudreyHepburn

dark crystal wrote: »

Wikipedia have some very interesting facts about the case on there. Also, it's a neutral site and therefore, isn't biased either way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann


Just goes to show how many other suspects may actually be in the frame, rather than just the McCanns.

That's very interesting stuff Dark Crystal. I actually remember hearing about the Australian woman but I'd forgotten about it til now.

Also the mystery DNA could be something.

Just goes to show there's a lot more to this case we are being told.

sunflower27

Chicke wrote: »

What concerns me is not what they think happened but the lies they have told.
A lot of the lies they have told can be explained by their desire to appear innocent or to protect themselves and their friends from disrepute
But how in earth how can you explain away their lie about the open window which to me represented at the very least a distraction to the police in their search for the abductor of their precious daughter

Yes, a hysterical mother/father is not going to hamper police time by saying windows were open that weren't and totally change the direction of the investigation to save face. Surely at the forefront of her/his mind would be co-operating and not trying to save face. Unless they already knew the child was dead... then by all means try and save your own neck :rolleyes:

dark crystal

sunflower27 wrote: »

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.

Similarly no one saw Gerry or Kate disposing of a body, either. If there was a car waiting nearby, they wouldn't have had to walk far at all. In fact, one of the critisisms levelled at the portugese police at the time, was that they never monitered any vehicles leaving Pria De Luz that night or the next day.

Many children go missing every year, without witnesses seeing anything. Sadly, sometimes child abductors just get lucky.

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

Many children go missing every year, without witnesses seeing anything. Sadly, sometimes child abductors just get lucky.

Similarly when violence is visited upon a child as happens every year, the vast majority of the time the perpetrators are the child's parents or extended family or a friend of the family.

AudreyHepburn

dark crystal wrote: »

Similarly no one saw Gerry or Kate disposing of a body, either. If there was a car waiting nearby, they wouldn't have had to walk far at all. In fact, one of the critisisms levelled at the portugese police at the time, was that they never monitered any vehicles leaving Pria De Luz that night or the next day.

Many children go missing every year, without witnesses seeing anything. Sadly, sometimes child abductors just get lucky.

Indeed. No-one saw Philip Cairns get abducted in 1986 yet no-one would even consider suggesting his parents are lying about what happened to him. Same with Mary Boyle in Donegal in the 70s.

In fact I think you'd find no-one actually saw what happened to the majority of the missing people in Ireland, yet no-one would suggest their families are involved.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Indeed. No-one saw Philip Cairns get abducted in 1986 yet no-one would even consider suggesting his parents are lying about what happened to him. Same with Mary Boyle in Donegal in the 70s. In fact I think you'd find no-one actually saw what happened to the majority of the missing people in Ireland, yet no-one would suggest their families are involved.

Have the parents of Philip Cairns waffled and obfuscated their way through the investigation? Did they have alibis that were established? Did they refuse garda questioning? Did they behave oddly? Did they refuse to cooperate with reconstructions etc? People are not pulling their suspicions about the McCanns out of thin air for crying out loud.

Mistyeyes321

lugha wrote: »

If I was to be as rude to you as you are being to me I might say you are missing quite a lot. :P

In relation to your question, I am not saying you should not pay attention to them as suspects, I am saying you should pay no attention to what they think happened. If they were not involved, their views don't carry anymore merit that yours or mine.

I think i'm understanding more where your coming from now!
I honestly don't have any theory tbh the only thing's I believe are wrong are the Timelines given by all including the Mcs & could be one of the reason's they wont return to potugal to do a Reconstruction. Because it could clearly show what Liar's they maybe.!
I still cannot just ignore the Dog's either, They could have made a mistake...But for both Dog's to be wrong?? I don't know what the chances of that happening are tbh! I'm still struggling with the Mcs did their Child harm...Maybe that has more to do with me than anything else!. I just couldn't imagine hurting one of my Children! I also find the Abduction theory alot shaky, The lack of evidence for an Abduction is a very big thing especially when you consider we're talking about two Doctor's who would know far more about securing Forensic evidence that any nomal John in the street! Yet if we believe what we're told it was alittle like Piccadilly Circus on a Saturday night excluding the Hot dog stand & Raffle!:eek: All these people were supposed to be inteligent people. having a stampede through the Apartment your Child has just gone missing from just doesn't seem right...Especially for all these Medical Buff's surely one of them would have pointed this out it's hardly Rocket science! Not forgetting they had the insight to inform the Press! If there was an Abduction where is the Evidence? no shutter's tampered with proven! So the only way the Abductor could have come in was through a door they left open... Again we come to timelines...So for saying sake we say the mcs never came back from the resturant to check these Children we're then left with roughly Two hour's far more realistic than the few Minute Snatch!

dark crystal

prinz wrote: »

Similarly when violence is visited upon a child as happens every year, the vast majority of the time the perpetrators are the child's parents or extended family or a friend of the family.

True indeed, but certainly not always.

When parents are ruled out of an investigation, that's when you have to look at the other options, such as paedophiles, child traffickers etc. look at Unicef's figures relating to child trafficking....scary stuff.

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

True indeed, but certainly not always.
When parents are ruled out of an investigation, that's when you have to look at the other options, such as paedophiles, child traffickers etc. look at Unicef's figures relating to child trafficking....scary stuff.

Accepted, but I don't think in Madeleine's case the parents have been ruled out to the extent that they can be ignored.

Mistyeyes321

Chicke wrote: »

Very interesting about the missing sports bag and very sad

What Bag? Sorry I've never heard about any Sport's bag missing!

maebee

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

What Bag? Sorry I've never heard about any Sport's bag missing!

Here you go Misty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akv01Y0pfNY

AudreyHepburn

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

What Bag? Sorry I've never heard about any Sport's bag missing!

Apparently a sports bag of Gerry's went missing from the apartment at the same time as Madeleine( some-one will have to find link to it, I only heard for the first time here).

The obvious conotation for some is Gerry stuffed Madeleine in the bag after her death and dumped her somewhere.

K-9

dark crystal wrote: »

True indeed, but certainly not always.

When parents are ruled out of an investigation, that's when you have to look at the other options, such as paedophiles, child traffickers etc. look at Unicef's figures relating to child trafficking....scary stuff.

I don't think they've been ruled out, just not enough there for a case.

prinz

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The obvious conotation for some is Gerry stuffed Madeleine in the bag after her death and dumped her somewhere.

The other is that someone kidnapped Madeleine from the apartment, or outside it and made away carrying her in their arms (as supposedly seen by McCann friend).... and then an unconnected piece of misfortune, someone else went in unnoticed by anyone and nicked a sportsbag. Plausible.

dark crystal

prinz wrote: »

Have the parents of Philip Cairns waffled and obfuscated their way through the investigation? Did they have alibis that were established? Did they refuse garda questioning? Did they behave oddly? Did they refuse to cooperate with reconstructions etc? People are not pulling their suspicions about the McCanns out of thin air for crying out loud.

In fairness, Phillip Cairns family were never treated as suspects in that case. He did not go missing from his bed, so the family would not have aroused the same suspicions as the McCanns may have.

I think Audrey's point was just that there doesn't have to be witnesses to an abduction to make it a valid theory...many abductions don't have viable clues or witnesses, they just happen by some cruel twist of circumstance that sees the child in the wrong place at the wrong time.

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The obvious conotation for some is Gerry stuffed Madeleine in the bag after her death and dumped her somewhere.

Very unpleasant thought but not impossible. None of us knows. We weren't there.

AudreyHepburn

prinz wrote: »

The other is that someone kidnapped Madeleine from the apartment, or outside it and made away carrying her in their arms (as supposedly seen by McCann friend).... and then an unconnected piece of misfortune, someone else went in unnoticed by anyone and nicked a sportsbag. Plausible.

A third option is the abductor put Madeleine into the sports bag and removed them both from the apartment.

hondasam

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2247-rogues-gallery-mccanns-friends

Don't think this has been posted.

was madeline made a ward of court before or after she went missing?

maebee

Imo, This speaks volumes about gerry McCann, as a parent:

From the Expresso interview (first interview after being released as arguido):

"Were you surprised when you were made arguidos?
"

Kate – It was not surprising after weeks with the media saying that we were suspects. And there we have to ask why the information that reached the media was disfigured. Why do the newspapers say that blood was found in the apartment when the police report does not confirm it? Why was it said that the DNA that was found in the car was a 100% match with Madeleine's?

Gerry – In a way, we would like to have been accused so we could defend ourselves openly. Now, reading the process, there is no evidence that justifies the suspicion, apart from the dogs' action. There was never a sustained explanation. And the questioning: 'What happened to Madeleine? How did you get rid of her? Who helped you? Where did you put her?' All fantasy! If they had found DNA – so what? And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?

prinz

dark crystal wrote: »

In fairness, Phillip Cairns family were never treated as suspects in that case. He did not go missing from his bed, so the family would not have aroused the same suspicions as the McCanns may have..

Everyone is a suspect tbh. I am sure they were never named as official suspects, but I am absolutely certain there whereabouts at the time of his disappearance was checked. It's not always as difficult to rule people out as it has proven to be in the McCann case.

dark crystal wrote: »

...they just happen by some cruel twist of circumstance that sees the child in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Absolutely. However the girl as you said disappeared from her bed, I wouldn't call her bed 'the wrong place' or her being there that night 'the wrong time'. It was very much the right place at exactly the right time by some child snatcher.

Chicke

Very interesting about the witness seeing someone carrying child down to marina hours after Madeline disappeared?this isn't in case files from what I can see.anyone else know any more on this?