Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week
Options
Comments
-
I think if you read this thread and look at what people are saying you will see that NO ONE has said its evidence ,.So who are these " quite a few " people who do ?Fine, that's exactly what I would say. But quite a few people will throw this out and say, or imply, that it is evidence.
I am not sure how you distinguish between evidence and suspicion? Suspicious surely means you suspect her of having some involvement. And thus it is evidence. It is not evidence. It is not suspicious. It is just strange
Personally speaking and I speak for myself only I am soon going to stop really getting involved in your posts as they are repetitive and I am beginning to wonder if you are simply on a bit of a wind up . If you are not fair enough but I do think that hammering the same point over and over wont realy gain you followers to be honest0 -
TBH, I think it is those on your side who are causing this particular point to be dragged out. The seem to want to accept what I say that it means absolutely nothing, one way or the other, but a recent poster continues to insist that it is suspicious. And it has been mentioned a good many times on the thread.I think if you read this thread and look at what people are saying you will see that NO ONE has said its evidence ,.So who are these " quite a few " people who do ?
Personally speaking and I speak for myself only I am soon going to stop really getting involved in your posts as they are repetitive and I am beginning to wonder if you are simply on a bit of a wind up . If you are fair enough but I do think that hammering the same point over and over wont realy gain you followers to be honest
Perhaps they are clear in their own minds how they see this point, but I am completely failing to understand their view. It is an irrelevant curiosity or not?0 -
One poster is not " quite a few " by a long shot . Of course we all have opinions and all entitled to express them . I dont agree with your view on some things and repeating them wont make me .You seem to think if you say it often enough we will all see the light .TBH, I think it is those on your side who are causing this particular point to be dragged out. The seem to want to accept what I say that it means absolutely nothing, one way or the other, but a recent poster continues to insist that it is suspicious. And it has been mentioned a good many times on the thread.
Perhaps they are clear in their own minds how they see this point, but I am completely failing to understand their view. It is an irrelevant curiosity or not?0 -
Just googled for hair testing & found this.!
http://www.concateno.com/divisions/child-protection/what-kind-of-test-should-i-use/a-trichotest-hair-analysis-for-drugs/
So according to this drug's will show up depending on the lenghth of hair...Don't get why Kate would be tested though tbh...Maybe something else I have missed!0 -
I think as adults we are able to make up our own minds as to what looks suspect and what doesn't and no harm in a healthy debate. But I agree, rehashing the same points is a waste of time.
Will be interesting to see how this whole case pans out in time to come though. It isn't going to go away, that's for sure.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Silver Moon wrote: »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
This article is one of many published in the National press at the time, of which most newspapers state that Madeleine McCann "raided" her mother's make-up and applied make-up to herself. Hello! No 3 year old could apply eye liner and mascara as Madeleine is purported to have done. The eye shadow isn't quite right, but her make-up must have been applied by some-one else.
Take a look at this image. Would really appreciate your comments.0 -
What you are doing to taking lots of things and saying if you add them all up, they must amount to something. Not so IMO. You need to take each element in turn, estimate its merit as evidence, and if you find it doesn’t have any, then you discard it. And when you have finished, then see what you are left with.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word cumulative.When circumstantial evidence is cumulative, the weakness of such circumstntial evidence is strengthened
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/circumstantial-evidence/Definition of CUMULATIVE 1 : made up of accumulated parts b : increasing by successive additions 2: tending to prove the same point <cumulative evidence>Do a similar analysis with each piece of information individually, rather than lazily say: there must be something there if you mix them all up together, and just see what you have at the end.
No, lookingat each piece individually is not how it's done.Now, I am aware that I am completely failing to convince most people here that this is a reasonable way to assess evidence..
There is a very good reason for that. Your argument is complete nonsense and has absolutely no basis in our legal system.Circumstantial evidence is used during a trial to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. This indirect evidence is the result of combining different, but seemingly unrelated, facts that the prosecution uses to infer the defendants guilt
http://www.probablecause.org/circumstantialevidence.html0 -
Thank you for that article , I hadnt read it before ,I am half way through it ,its a long one .!foxshooter243 wrote: »
Something niggled at me all along since the Late Late show and now I know what it was . I thought it a little odd at the time that Kate had mentioned Madeleines new clothes, Kate said she thought Madeleine looked fabulous in them and wondered if they had drawn the abductor as Madeleine was so pretty in new clothes .Kate said it was a pair of white broderie anglais shorts and pink strappy top .
I took notice as I love broderie anglais and hadnt seen it used for a long time . Kate siad( and I am positive on this) "She is wearing them in the photo on the tennis court , holding the three tennis balls .And I wonder if someone was watching her then ""
This is the picture Kate mentioned as having the broderie anglais shorts on .As you see Madeleine has other clothes on in it . Pink t shirt and pink plain shorts
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/TENNIS_COURTS.htm
The picture of Madeleine wearing what Kate described is a completely different picture and day .Its at the pool with Gerry said to be on the Tuesday .Here you see the white shorts and pink top .
http://eefweb.org/sermons/series_scriptural/inc/madeleine%20mccann%20found%202010-16058.html
Kate said on the LLS , Madeleine is wearing them in photo of her on the tennis courts on the day she went missing .But she isnt .
Now before some leap on me and say everyone makes mistakes and we all get muddled I do know that and its a possibility Kate got muddled ,But I found it odd that a mother who would have scrutinised the photos and look at them over and over and over would make that mistake .Even I when she said it immediately knew what Madeleine had on on the tennis court as I had seen it so many times .
No I dont know what my kids had on in every photo , but if one was missing and I had only those last photos I would know every detail and every tiny little thing I think .
I found it really strange that she got that wrong , or indeed said it wrong on purpose to prove a point she was making ? And Gerry ,for once , didnt correct her and take over . It simply struck me as being odd .,I also found it uncomfortable that Kate would make that analogy about an abductor taking Madeleine because he had noted how pretty her clothes were .0 -
I do. It is you that do not understand that adding a whole load of nothings still gives you nothing.Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word cumulative.
Have you looked at the video I referenced earlier? He makes the very same point re the error people are making here in interpreting evidence.There is a very good reason for that. Your argument is complete nonsense and has absolutely no basis in our legal system.
Certainly, sometimes facts have greater meaning when interpreted concurrently with others, but that is not the case in the example I cited. Nobody has succeeded, or even tried, to make a case that Kate’s choice of words is suspicious in its own right, nor have they argued that it can be considered suspicious if taken with specific other evidence. And if you cannot do that, then is has no value as evidence.No, looking at each piece individually is not how it's done.
Your approach would seem to be: “Look at all these odd things. Surely when all taken together, you have to agree that something is off here?” I think that kind of vague analysis probably is how many people might assess uncertain events. I disagree that it is how they should do it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree about cumulative ,Wasnt Joe O Reilly convicted on cumulative circumstancial evidence for the murder of Rachel .Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word cumulative.
No, lookingat each piece individually is not how it's done.
There is a very good reason for that. Your argument is complete nonsense and has absolutely no basis in our legal system.0 -
I do. It is you that do not understand that adding a whole load of nothings still gives you nothing..
A whole load of nothings? :pac: Yes, deleted phone records, conflicting statements, dramatically changing supposed eye witness accounts, timelines that don't add up. Sure it's all nothing. Please note I have never said these things mean the McCanns are guilty. It certainly is suspicious behaviour though.Nobody has succeeded, or even tried, to make a case that Kate’s choice of words is suspicious in its own right, nor have they argued that it can be considered suspicious if taken with specific other evidence. And if you cannot do that, then is has no value as evidence...
It is suspicious in it's own right. I don't understand the reasoning behind (a) why she would immediately raise the prospect of a forced abduction, rather than say, Madeleine is missing, Madeleine has wandering out, possibly staff checking up on her if she was crying, or that she was with one of the others of the group, and (b) why she would refer to the abductor in the plural (c) even if she fears Madeleine has been abucted she returns to the Tapas Bar leaving the twins behind in the apartment where Maddie had just been taken from? Suspicious? To me? Absolutely. If it's suspicious to you or not is irrelevant and I couldn't care less.I disagree that it is how they should do it.
The rest of the civilised legal world disagrees with you. Maybe there is a hint there.0 -
camille262 wrote: »This article is one of many published in the National press at the time, of which most newspapers state that Madeleine McCann "raided" her mother's make-up and applied make-up to herself. Hello! No 3 year old could apply eye liner and mascara as Madeleine is purported to have done. The eye shadow isn't quite right, but her make-up must have been applied by some-one else.
Take a look at this image. Would really appreciate your comments.
That pic makes me feel very uncomfortable. I think it was Jim Gamble of CEOP who said they should not have used this pic for their viral mail last year. There are other similar pics of Madeleine, one in a red dress with her head bent backwards, which imo is inappropriate. I will have a look for it.0 -
dark crystal wrote: »sunflower27 wrote: »But people ARE saying why they think the McCanns have done the things they did.
Wash cuddle cat because it had evidence on it (and why would a mother cleanse a toy of her missing child's scent?).
Kate says cuddlecat was covered in sand, sweat and sun tan lotion and she wanted to keep it in good condition. The police had already taken DNA and fingerprint samples from the toy before she washed it.
That the twins slept through the commotion because they were drugged and yet even though Kate thought it herself she felt no need to get them medical assistance.
Both Kate and the twins hair was tested for traces of sedatives and none were found. According to police forensic tests, the twins were never drugged on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
The window theory - that the parent's said that to move the focus from the front door being open - and to focus the inquiry away from the more logical explanation that madeleine was taken out the front door (and there is no eviudence Gerry opened those windows as we all know so that was a lie).
This is merely Gerry's theory. It doesn't make him a liar, it's what he believes happened, rightly or wrongly. He could well be wrong - doesn't make him guilty of a crime. He also says in another interview that he now believes the intruder was hiding in the apartment at one stage when he went to check on the children. Again, just pure speculation on his part, not a lie.
Why the McCanns vowed to stay till she was found but bailed the moment they became suspects and outright refused to take lie detector tests...
Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable, that's why they are deemed inadmissable in court and used in lowbrow morning TV shows instead. Besides, their lawyer no doubt advised them against doing one.
That despite being obviously intelligent they totally destroyed the crime scene when they should have known not to touch anything.
Are you seriously suggesting the first thought the parents of a missing child would have would be to preserve the scene of the crime?? It was the police's job to seal off the crime scene, not two distraught people just having found their child missing. The PJ were highly critisised for not doing so.
There are many, many other things that TOGETHER don't add up. These are not little things.
The dogs, obviously.
Now, maybe you would like to explain yourself why all these things are not really worth any weight.
They are certainly not worth enough weight to warrant the police arresting or charging the McCanns with a crime.
That is leaving out a bit though. They were tested months later after refusals to have the tests done closer to the time when Kate was claiming the children were drugged. Also the twins were given tight haircuts after the first request of having drug tests done.
So months after the even the twins were foun d not to have drugs in their systems, but the police have no idea foir sure if they had drugs in their system on the night in question. That is in the published police reports by botyh the British and Portugese police.
Also the tests done on Kate McCann and the twins months after she refused to do the same tests for the Police were done in England by a firm the McCanns went to and not the investigating police.
The investigating police had to request those forensic "evidence" results to be sent to them, plus the Portugese police were forced to send their requests through the UK Foreign Office and onto the Lord Chancellor's office in order to get information and try to request interviews. And this was only in September 2007, so the investigating police had to jump through hoops for information, yet the McCanns seem to have people happily accepting that their toxicology tests done four months after they were asked for them and not even done by the investigating police are some kind of proof that there was defo no drugs on the night.
Funny how the suggestions of the twins being drugged seems to be twisted into an attack on the police when the first perple to make that claim were the McCanns themselves.0 -
AudreyHepburnQuote:
Have you read the police files?
No. Have you?
Sorry, I missed this reply to my post the other day. I certainly have read the police files and I suggest you do the same. Then you will be in a position to give an informed opinion. It took me a few weeks to read the whole lot, all the Rogatory statements, reports, etc. so I'll understand that if you're not posting here for a while, you'll be doing the research you haven't yet done. Please do not attempt to dismiss the police files. They have been available online for almost 3 years and must be the only documents in this case that have not been Carter Rucked by the McCanns.
The Official Police Files can be found here:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/0 -
Never before have the Eagles provided such an apt soundtrack to all of this:
GET OVER IT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kslHr7_9Zac0 -
Don't be so bloody crass. We're talking about a couple who have lost their child in tragic circumstances. It never ceases to amaze me how all sensitivity and empathy are lost as soon as some people sit in front of their computer screen.
If you have not noticed already, people are extremely peed off with this couple and how everyone is fauning all over them. If they were not from the nice background they would have been crucified all over the papers for their negligence and quite frankly selfishness in leaving their child alone. You know damn well how the papers would have had a field day if it was a family on social welfare on holidays in Spain or any other stereotypical place. If this incident happened in Ireland, Social Welfare would have come to their attention. It is well known that Social will be on top of you if you leave a child alone in a house for more than a few hours.
People simply are very cynicial at this point, in light of Portugese and British investigations. Ok, whilst they are professionals, they might still be wrong. The McCann family are still not co-operating.
I hate bringing up another example, but shortly after this sorry incident, a young Dublin girl went missing on holidays / surrounding Dublin area. Nothing is heard about her now, yet she is Irish, what is wrong Irish media, not selling enough papers ? (well ok, parents clearly asked for privacy)0 -
Kez 73
Would you know where I would be looking to find out more about the drugs test on the twins,especially the story about the hair cut short.
Is this not an obstruction of justice if they declined to get the hair sampled at the tiime of disappearance and effectively got rid of evidence by cutting the little ones hair so tightly.this to me us interesting because having a little girl myself I don't know a single parent who cuts the hair length of little girls that age.we all want it to grow!
Also.would you know more about the blue bag.I have seen conflicting evidence as to it's existence or not with the mccanns denying it existed.are there any pics?where did the police find about it
Sorry about all the questions0 -
Kez 73
Would you know where I would be looking to find out more about the drugs test on the twins,especially the story about the hair cut short.
Is this not an obstruction of justice if they declined to get the hair sampled at the tiime of disappearance and effectively got rid of evidence by cutting the little ones hair so tightly.this to me us interesting because having a little girl myself I don't know a single parent who cuts the hair length of little girls that age.we all want it to grow!
Also.would you know more about the blue bag.I have seen conflicting evidence as to it's existence or not with the mccanns denying it existed.are there any pics?where did the police find about it
Sorry about all the questions
link about blue bag-
http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2009/09/gerry-mccann-and-blue-tennis-bag.html0 -
There's a report on the drugs tests here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570315/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-takes-drug-test.html
However, any report I have read says the tests were carried out by their own team, if so there is less chance of independent verification that the hair samples were taken directly from the twins instead of being 'supplied' samples.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry, I missed this reply to my post the other day. I certainly have read the police files and I suggest you do the same. Then you will be in a position to give an informed opinion. It took me a few weeks to read the whole lot, all the Rogatory statements, reports, etc. so I'll understand that if you're not posting here for a while, you'll be doing the research you haven't yet done. Please do not attempt to dismiss the police files. They have been available online for almost 3 years and must be the only documents in this case that have not been Carter Rucked by the McCanns.
The Official Police Files can be found here:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/
I did not realise you could get the offical files online which is the only reason I had not read them. I will go ahead and read them now.
One thing though, please don't talk to me like I am a child who has to be directed and told to read or when I should and shouldn't talk, I find a little patronising. You may not have meant it that way of course but that is how it comes across.
I'll post as and when I feel like it unless the mods tell me not to.
I won't go out of my way to dismiss the files but I also won't just take them as gospel because they are the offical files. The police have as much potential to be wrong as anyone.0 -
That pic makes me feel very uncomfortable. I think it was Jim Gamble of CEOP who said they should not have used this pic for their viral mail last year. There are other similar pics of Madeleine, one in a red dress with her head bent backwards, which imo is inappropriate. I will have a look for it.
http://orlandonewscenter.com/the-disappearance-of-madeleinemccann/
Do you mean this one Maebee?
Because honestly I think if it is this one you are overreacting.
This is just a cute picture of a cute little girl in a pretty red dress, nothing more.0 -
I do. It is you that do not understand that adding a whole load of nothings still gives you nothing.
Have you looked at the video I referenced earlier? He makes the very same point re the error people are making here in interpreting evidence.
Certainly, sometimes facts have greater meaning when interpreted concurrently with others, but that is not the case in the example I cited. Nobody has succeeded, or even tried, to make a case that Kate’s choice of words is suspicious in its own right, nor have they argued that it can be considered suspicious if taken with specific other evidence. And if you cannot do that, then is has no value as evidence.
Your approach would seem to be: “Look at all these odd things. Surely when all taken together, you have to agree that something is off here?” I think that kind of vague analysis probably is how many people might assess uncertain events. I disagree that it is how they should do it.
Funny you should argue against what Prinz said about Kate McCann in such a manner, given what Kate McCann said about how odd things/coincidences happening in numbers tend to point towards something that happened.
Somebody quoted her directly from her book saying so in the last day or two. So people are judging Kate McCann with the same standards that she herself has been quoted as saying/using.
Seems fair to look at the things that don't add up in the McCann's stories using the same criteria that Kate tries to use against the police in her book.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »http://orlandonewscenter.com/the-disappearance-of-madeleinemccann/
Do you mean this one Maebee?
Because honestly I think if it is this one you are overreacting.
This is just a cute picture of a cute little girl in a pretty red dress, nothing more.
No I don't mean that one Audrey. That is a pic of a cute little girl, nothing more. I'm trying to post a different pic but am having some difficulty. Bear with me please.0 -
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/05/mccanns-release-madeleines-lolita-photo.html
Mark Williams-Thomas questions the 'appropriateness' of the new Madeleine photo.* On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen
* Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels-ill advised again.0 -
AudreyHepburn wrote: »I did not realise you could get the offical files online which is the only reason I had not read them. I will go ahead and read them now.
One thing though, please don't talk to me like I am a child who has to be directed and told to read or when I should and shouldn't talk, I find a little patronising. You may not have meant it that way of course but that is how it comes across.
I'll post as and when I feel like it unless the mods tell me not to.
I won't go out of my way to dismiss the files but I also won't just take them as gospel because they are the offical files. The police have as much potential to be wrong as anyone.
I'm surprised you didn't know about the police files being available online as it has been mentioned dozens of times throughout this thread, which you've been on since page one. I didn't mean to patronise you and I apologise if it came across as such but you must admit that the police files and their conclusion are a huge part of the case and it's only right that people should educate themselves in all facets of the case.0 -
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id262.html " Anyone see how this person look's anything like Beckham?!" Pic 1,
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id
263.html Pic 2,
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id90.html
Also just been reading up on RM...How like Gerry Mccann is he?!
Do feel uncomfortable if claim's are true he had images on his computer?! Only just read the first part so this might come out to be untrue...0 -
I've always been under the impression that the aerobics instructor was at the meal on the night of the disappearance and gave an alibi for Gerry mcgann between 9.30 and ten.but just read her witness statement and she was there the night before and cannot provide an alibi for anyone on the night in question.That to me is very significant0
-
I'm surprised you didn't know about the police files being available online as it has been mentioned dozens of times throughout this thread, which you've been on since page one. I didn't mean to patronise you and I apologise if it came across as such but you must admit that the police files and their conclusion are a huge part of the case and it's only right that people should educate themselves in all facets of the case.
Oh I do completely agree with this, I genuinely didn't know the PJ had made their records publically available or I'd have read them long before now.
I'll let you know the outcome of my reading the files.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have just spent hours on end after clicking that link !! Its so addictive . But very informative too . I have bookmarked it now for another day . So we wont wait around all night till you have finished !! LOLAudreyHepburn wrote: »Oh I do completely agree with this, I genuinely didn't know the PJ had made their records publically available or I'd have read them long before now.
I'll let you know the outcome of my reading the files.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement