Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

DexyDrain

Here's my thoughts on the Tapas group, perhaps they could be lying just to cover up that they were not checking like they said. Reasonable enough.
If that is the case then I really cannot fathom how they left the sliding door open while they were intending to be gone for hours and then to sit facing away from the (extremely poor) view of the unlocked door. It sounds to me like the sliding door in this scenario was definitely locked, as backed up by Gerry's first statement that he walked all around and opened the front door, passing the supposed open sliding door right by the path.

Why did Gerry and Kate never check anyone else's kids on any night, but every Tom, Dick and Harry was checking theirs at apparently 10-15 minute intervals? That's very weird.

Now, if the sliding door was locked, as we would have to conclude if the Tapas group were just covering up their negligence, there could have been no break in, no abduction.

I think people really underestimate the human mind in survival mode, especially when one dominant person is lacking normal emotional functioning. Their appearances in the days after, their lack of any rage at this abductor (she's been taken), their lack of attempts at direct communication to a missing child, the very bizarre reactions once the police arrive and many other strange behaviours make me wonder if they know how normal emotions are expressed.

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

I really, really don't know why you think that. A couple of posters I'd say, then again a couple of posters just dismiss anything like it whatsoever, with a "sure a parent wouldn't do that" thinking. We know that but there have been cases of it and people can behave like that.

A few posters are open to the possibility of it, this labelling is just a slur on the other view.

Most people here seem to believe that the McCanns are hiding a (probable) accidental death. I have heard no account yet which did not have the McCanns knowing that Madeleine was already dead when they met their friends.

If you subscribe to such a view then it follows that you do think that the McCanns were able to disguise extreme distress.

TommyTippee

DexyDrain wrote: »

Why did Gerry and Kate never check anyone else's kids on any night, but every Tom, Dick and Harry was checking theirs at apparently 10-15 minute intervals? That's very weird.

It's very weird because it isn't true.

They are all covering each other, which is perfectly understandable if completely immoral.

Stella89

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I would imagine this was the position of the Portuguese DPP when he told both the Portuguese and British police to stop wasting his time and GTFO of my office.

I don't think the Portugese DPP would have been dismissive of the biggest Portugese force search and investigation ever made in Portugals history , and the conclusion that they came to . I think he would have realised that this case was becoming a political and economic nightmare for everyone concerned and like Gerry McCAnn said " Find the body, prove that we killed her" .:o

Goncala Amaral summarized it well .

"In the way that the process was archived, it’s not reopened due to political reasons.” This, despite “the understanding of the Portuguese and the English investigators, in September 2007, being that there was a death and the concealment of a cadaver. "






As said in the original post, If this couple were not doctors with contacts, they would not have gotten away with disrupting the cause of justice .

maebee

It looks like Arthur Cowley has left the McCann's employ:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://sosmaddie.blogs.dhnet.be/archive/2011/06/11/prive-abandonne-l-enquete.html&ei=z4TzTczJMYi28QO5mqWdBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ7gEwAw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmadeleine%2Bmccann%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4ACAW_en___GB380%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D529%26tbs%3Dsbd:1%26tbm%3Dblg%26prmd%3Divnslofd

Mistyeyes321

DexyDrain wrote: »

Here's my thoughts on the Tapas group, perhaps they could be lying just to cover up that they were not checking like they said. Reasonable enough.
If that is the case then I really cannot fathom how they left the sliding door open while they were intending to be gone for hours and then to sit facing away from the (extremely poor) view of the unlocked door. It sounds to me like the sliding door in this scenario was definitely locked, as backed up by Gerry's first statement that he walked all around and opened the front door, passing the supposed open sliding door right by the path.

Why did Gerry and Kate never check anyone else's kids on any night, but every Tom, Dick and Harry was checking theirs at apparently 10-15 minute intervals? That's very weird.

Now, if the sliding door was locked, as we would have to conclude if the Tapas group were just covering up their negligence, there could have been no break in, no abduction.

I think people really underestimate the human mind in survival mode, especially when one dominant person is lacking normal emotional functioning. Their appearances in the days after, their lack of any rage at this abductor (she's been taken), their lack of attempts at direct communication to a missing child, the very bizarre reactions once the police arrive and many other strange behaviours make me wonder if they know how normal emotions are expressed.

I believe this is probably what the Tapas 9 are hiding the fact they left these children alone everynight, I cannot see all these people covering a death up I just can't...! I think they concocted the time stories to try & make it look alittle better than it was!!
It couldn't have got much worse now could it?!
This is another reason i'm always left with these crazy timelines aswell...I still say "IF" there was an abductor then they should all come clean & tell the truth "IF" they have this little girls interest's at heart they will do it no matter what critisism they attract, Most people don't believe them anyway & another reason alot of people think they won't return to do the reconstruction because it will show they all Lied! Good point regarding Gerry going in a different door btw...:)

deathrider

Can the OP please change the title to this thread, because I keep seeing the 'next week' part and thing "fcuking hell, they're on it again??" :pac:

up for anything

lugha wrote: »

Most people here seem to believe that the McCanns are hiding a (probable) accidental death. I have heard no account yet which did not have the McCanns knowing that Madeleine was already dead when they met their friends.

If you subscribe to such a view then it follows that you do think that the McCanns were able to disguise extreme distress.

lugha wrote: »

The difficulty in this case is that every accidental death/cover up scenario seems to assume that the McCanns sat through this infamous tapas session, knowing that their daughter was dead, but not betraying sufficient emotion to arose suspicion. People certainly can, and have, played the deceiving distressed relative. But it is a much greater ask for a bereaved parent to play the part of the carefree holiday maker, even for a couple of hours. This is the major problem with of the accidental death scenarios.

This is supposing they felt grief and distress. Maybe they didn't so didn't need to pretend. The opposite appears to be true to me that they had more difficulty pretending emotion a lot of the time.

lugha

up for anything wrote: »

This is supposing they felt grief and distress. Maybe they didn't so didn't need to pretend. The opposite appears to be true to me that they had more difficulty pretending emotion a lot of the time.

There is little doubt that the “the McCanns are not feeling this the right way” view is prevalent. And it should be said that this kind of “thinking” is not unique to this sorry case. 10 years previously in Britain we had the masses leading the way in showing the proper way to “feel” the loss of princess Diana and some newspapers even took it on themselves to chastise her real family for not putting on suitable public displays of emotion! :eek: At least the British public had the subsequent grace to be thoroughly embarrassed by this.

Closer to home, you may recall Mickey Harte’s talking about his daughter with a couple of days of her murder. He wasn’t a quivering wreck, he didn’t break down every few second. He gave an even and moving account of what his daughter meant to him and those who knew her.

In short, there is not a “right” way to feel or to show your feelings in your darkest hours. Some totally disintegrate emotionally, some don’t. Alas, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it would seem there are some who will continue to persist with this rather odious notion that there is a right way to respond emotionally in times of personal anguish.

badabing106

Notwithstanding That the McCanns tried to similate that an abduction took place, notwithstanding there was zero evidence of an abduction having taken place

Here are two more overwhelming reasons which suggest Madenline McCann was not abducted

two_dog_reasons.jpg

alie

lugha wrote: »

There is little doubt that the “the McCanns are not feeling this the right way” view is prevalent. And it should be said that this kind of “thinking” is not unique to this sorry case. 10 years previously in Britain we had the masses leading the way in showing the proper way to “feel” the loss of princess Diana and some newspapers even took it on themselves to chastise her real family for not putting on suitable public displays of emotion! :eek: At least the British public had the subsequent grace to be thoroughly embarrassed by this.

Closer to home, you may recall Mickey Harte’s talking about his daughter with a couple of days of her murder. He wasn’t a quivering wreck, he didn’t break down every few second. He gave an even and moving account of what his daughter meant to him and those who knew her.

In short, there is not a “right” way to feel or to show your feelings in your darkest hours. Some totally disintegrate emotionally, some don’t. Alas, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it would seem there are some who will continue to persist with this rather odious notion that there is a right way to respond emotionally in times of personal anguish.

Terrible what happened to Michaela Harte , however Madeline was a little child, there is a difference, i do not beleive Madeline was abducted and i do think they all lied as a recent poster said to make them look a little better, kate said she and gerry went looking for her , they were out for 1 hour. It must be awful to lose a child , no matter how or how old they are, its just that to me, gerry seems to get a bit nervous when kate gets upset on tv, is he afraid that she will spill the beans??

DexyDrain

lugha wrote: »

In short, there is not a “right” way to feel or to show your feelings in your darkest hours. Some totally disintegrate emotionally, some don’t. Alas, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it would seem there are some who will continue to persist with this rather odious notion that there is a right way to respond emotionally in times of personal anguish.

There is a difference though in the shock of someone dying, a mixture of disbelief, denial and unwillingness to come to terms with the person being gone forever that might take days to kick in when compared to when a child has been taken by some predator and is out there somewhere going through god knows what.

Knowing a situation is completely unchangeable is different to knowing that your child's safe return or impending death is totally out of your hands and hangs in the balance. The unknowns, the fear, the helplessness and confusion must be completely unbearable. The sheer drop from high hopes down to inconsolable grief and powerlessness to help your missing child is not so easy to control and contain.

It is extremely odd that they never speak directly to her or her captors without being prompted. It's very odd that Kate was searching for a priest in the middle of the night but never searched for her daughter.

They may just be odd people, so I think the issue of whether they dined that evening appearing as normal (if they actually did appear normal, or if they didn't know of anything themselves at that stage) is really wide open.

Cunning Stunt

badabing106 wrote: »

Notwithstanding That the McCanns tried to similate that an abduction took place, notwithstanding there was zero evidence of an abduction having taken place

Here are two more overwhelming reasons which suggest Madenline McCann was not abducted

two_dog_reasons.jpg

+1
The forensic dogs have been mentioned a good few times in this thread, just as they have in the media, but I think it's crazy how theys always seem to be just dismissed like that. Each of these dogs was trained for one purpose - to detect evidence of a cadaver/blood, and that's exactly what they did in the McCanns apartment and car!

lugha

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

+1
The forensic dogs have been mentioned a good few times in this thread, just as they have in the media, but I think it's crazy how theys always seem to be just dismissed like that. Each of these dogs was trained for one purpose - to detect evidence of a cadaver/blood, and that's exactly what they did in the McCanns apartment and car!

I'm not sure who has been dismissing them? I have always said the evidence of the dogs is very strong (though not 100% reliable as you seem to be suggesting) but there is very little else of substance that implicates the McCanns. There are lots of things thrown out (such as the very tired line of there being no evidence of abduction as cited in the post you quote) but which amounts to little, or in some cases zero, evidence of the McCanns being involved.

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

I'm not sure who has been dismissing them? I have always said the evidence of the dogs is very strong (though not 100% reliable as you seem to be suggesting) but there is very little else of substance that implicates the McCanns. There are lots of things thrown out (such as the very tired line of there being no evidence of abduction as cited in the post you quote) but which amounts to little, or in some cases zero, evidence of the McCanns being involved.

That is bascially the McCanns mantra which they have tried to force into peoples minds from the beginning, The McCanns mantra is that there is no evidence that Madeline is dead , and that there is no evidence to implicate them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbpJeioLQHE

THere are over 100 piece of information which implicate them and which are freely available with a quick google search

" THere is no evidence to implicate us in her death" oops gerry :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AwkqjBh3ZI

"Everything we've done during the last 100 days focused on, err, the belief that Madeleine was alive when she was abducted"

Why would he say this? Surely nobody would abduct a dead child?
(Watch their reaction when they realise the mistake that have made, this is before they were made suspects)

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

The McCanns mantra is that there is no evidence that Madeline is dead , and that there is no evidence to implicate them

I would have thought that it is pretty obvious why somebody who has an on-going campaign to find their missing child would never, ever publically concede that they might be dead, whatever they might privately think.

And I would think it is even less surprising that anyone who is denying an accusation, whether they are innocent or not, would claim that there is no evidence against them. It is not true that there is no evidence against them but it is hardly surprising that they try to dismiss it?

badabing106 wrote: »

THere are over 100 piece of information which implicate them and which are freely available with a quick google search

Quality, not quantity is what counts. Does the "no evidence of an intruder" line count as one of these 100 pieces?

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

I would have thought that it is pretty obvious why somebody who has an on-going campaign to find their missing child would never, ever publically concede that they might be dead, whatever they might privately think.


And I would think it is even less surprising that anyone who is denying an accusation, whether they are innocent or not, would claim that there is no evidence against them. It is not true that there is no evidence against them but it is hardly surprising that they try to dismiss it?


Quality, not quantity is what counts. Does the "no evidence of an intruder" line count as one of these 100 pieces?

If you take one piece out of a hundred, then I would agree with you. If you take 100 pieces of information together, like any proper investigation would do, then they form a big picture, which is difficult to dismiss when taken together they all point to the same scenario, in my opinion

Added to this, the dogs information that there was a dead body in The McCanns appartment and in their rental car (hired three weeks after Madeleine was "abducted")

Who and why was there a dead body in their appartment and in their car?

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

If you take one piece out of a hundred, then I would a gree with you. If you take 100 pieces of information together, like any proper investigation would do, then they form a big picture, which is difficult to dismiss when they all point to the same scenario, in my opinion

Yes, this mode of “lump” it all together as a way of processing evidence has been suggested before on this thread. I simply do not agree that this is how you should proceed. Each piece should be closely to assess its value. And I think much of the supposed evidence will not stand up to much scrutiny if you proceed like this. There is an unholy amount of nonsense being presented as evidence.

badabing106 wrote: »

Added to this, the dogs information that their was a dead body in The McCanns appartment and in their rental car (hired three weeks after Madeline was "abducted")
Who was the dead body in their appartment and in their car?

Funny you should say “added to this” when this by far the strongest evidence that the McCanns were involved. It is this that that the other meagre scraps of evidence should be added to.
And you assume that the evidence from the dogs is 100% reliable. It is good, but not quite that good.

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

Funny you should say “added to this” when this by far the strongest evidence that the McCanns were involved. It is this that that the other meagre scraps of evidence should be added to.
And you assume that the evidence from the dogs is 100% reliable. It is good, but not quite that good.

"added to this" means added to the fact that there was no evidence or plausibilty in the abduction theory, even after the McCanns tryed to similate that there was an abduction( Why would they do that by the way?)

The dogs are born and trained to do one thing and one thing only ,( namely I get the scent of a cadaver or i don't, or i get the scent of blood or i don't ) They can't be bribed and don't lie , do you have information that the police dogs in this case were unreliable ?

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

"added to this" means added to the fact that it was no evidence of an abduction, even after the McCanns tryed to similate that there was an abduction( Why would they do that by the way?)

Why do they insist that there was an abduction? Well it is most unlikely (though not impossible) that Madeleine simply wandered off as her body would probably have been found. Which leaves two possibilities. She was abducted. Or the McCanns were somehow involved in getting rid of her. They of course insist that the latter did not happen so they are only really left with one choice as to what did happen.

badabing106 wrote: »

I would have thought that the dogs would be very reliable, They are born and trained to do one thing and one thing only, They can't be bribed and don't lie , do you have information that the dogs are unreliable. What percentage reliability would you give them?

This is debatable. I recall an earlier post suggesting that there was perhaps a 10% chance that they would detect the presence of a body when there wasn’t actually a body there. Some say this figure should be higher, some say it should be lower. In any case, this figure it not the one we really want. What we would like to know is, what are the chances that there was a body there given that the dogs detected one? I don’ t think it is possible to answer this precisely but I do agree that it is fair to say that the chances are fairly small. i.e. the dogs are probably not making a mistake.

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

Why do they insist that there was an abduction?

No, why did the McCanns simulate an abduction?

Why did they lie to the police about the circumstances in which they found the appartment? ,Why did they say that someone opened the window from the outside which was not impossible? Why did they say that some one jemmied open the window? Why did Kate McCann scream "they have taken her"?, why did they let their friend the tapas 7, walk all over the appartment if they instantly thought that she was abducted? why did they move the couch over the spot where the dog later found the evidence of blood?? Why did they try to deceive the police into thinking that an abduction took place, why?

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

No, why did the McCanns simulate an abduction?

Why did they lie to the police about the circumstances in which they found the appartment? ,Why did they say that someone opened the window from the outside which was not impossible? Why did they say that some one jemmied open the window? Why did Kate McCann scream "they have taken her"?, why did they let their friend the tapas 7, walk all over the appartment if they instantly thought that she was abducted? why did they move the couch over the spot where the dog later found the evidence of blood?? Why did they try to deceive the police into thinking that an abduction took place, why?

I presume you consider their suggestion that an intruder jemmied and came through the window to be the “lie” you refer to? I would suggest that they wanted to minimise their degree of culpability in the disappearance of their child, thinking rightly or wrongly, that a little white lie would not impede the search for her.

They continue to push this line of course despite it being utterly implausible. Would you call this a lie? Well some (you included I believe) like to push the line that the McCanns cheerfully partied with their friends despite knowing that their daughter lay dead in the apartment, a far more implausible scenario. Shall I call you a liar? Some people just really want some things to be true, no matter how implausible they are.

Why were they not forensically aware? Surely if would be more suspicious, in a time of great anxiety, they had the foresight to preserve the scene. And I expect that it exactly what you would not be saying had they done do, and would be counting it as another piece of evidence against them.
Deliberately contaminating a crime scene makes sense to destroy evidence that might be there. It makes no sense if there was no evidence there, which of course there would not be if they were involved.

Why did Kate McCann scream "they have taken her"? Ah, yes. This little gem. So here we have a woman who all evening put on an absolute masterful display of deceit but when it comes to some basics of deceit (i.e. don’t reveal more than you are supposed to know) she turns into a blithering idiot and gives the game away with her first utterance. Her utterance was an odd thing to say if she was not involved. But it was an even odder thing to say if she was.

Look, my view is that is more likely than not that the McCanns were not involved. Thus I do not rule out that they were. But the scenarios out there of how they might have been involved simply do not fit very well. I think if they were involved, and the truth ever does come out in full, it will be very different to any current explanation.

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

Look, my view is that is more likely than not that the McCanns were not involved. .

lugha wrote: »

I don’ t think it is possible to answer this precisely but I do agree that it is fair to say that the chances are fairly small. i.e. the dogs are probably not making a mistake

You believe the dogs are probably not making a mistake( the dogs say there was a cadaver in the McCanns apartment and in their rental car),

but you believe the McCanns were not involved ...

lugha

badabing106 wrote: »

You believe the dogs are probably not making a mistake( the dogs say there was a cadaver in the McCanns apartment and in their rental car),

but you believe the McCanns were not involved ...

Yes, apparent contraction, I know.
But if it's a choice between saying the dogs were wrong or the McCanns were able to present a cheerful front despite their daughter being dead then I pick the first. Both are unlikely but the first is far less unlikely.
Of course you should consider all of the evidence and not just the two bits I cited. But I consider these two pieces to be by far the most important, for and against their guilt.

badabing106

lugha wrote: »

Yes, apparent contraction, I know.
But if it's a choice between saying the dogs were wrong or the McCanns were able to present a cheerful front despite their daughter being dead then I pick the first. Both are unlikely but the first is far less unlikely.
.

Your confusing me.. You are saying that is far more likely that the specialist sniffer dog got it wrong, than the likelyhood of the McCanns putting on a cheerful face despite their daughter being dead...


Is that what you believe?

TommyTippee

lugha wrote: »

the McCanns were able to present a cheerful front despite their daughter being dead

Has happened dozens of time in similar cases.

TommyTippee

This is the reaction from the husband of Michaela Harte on the topic of him being made a suspect following her murder in Mauritius:

"Yeah, that happened," he said, adding: "When you're at rock bottom it doesn't really matter anymore what anyone says or does."

[http://www.independent.ie/national-news/when-i-saw-michaela-in-the-bath-i-grabbed-her-and-screamed-2625885.html]

Interesting to read this and think of the McCanns' anger at being questioned. Different circumstances, sure, but it made me think about the case again and how I would react if I was completely innocent.

I am pretty sure I would get on with ruling myself out so that they would concentrate on finding the real criminal(s), instead of refusing to answer questions and leaving the country at the first opportunity following questioning.

To leave so many questions up in the air and leaving yourself open to suspicion seems madness.

In the trial of Jeffrey MacDonald I referenced earlier in the thread, it was observed that he had developed a "paranoid psychosis" about the events, to the point where he criticised the police, the lawyers, the judge and the jury. He was, of course, guilty although it took ten years to finally convict him, after many tv appearances and donations received.

He was a doctor too.


url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_MacDonald[/url

iamwhoiam

lugha wrote: »

There is little doubt that the “the McCanns are not feeling this the right way” view is prevalent. And it should be said that this kind of “thinking” is not unique to this sorry case. 10 years previously in Britain we had the masses leading the way in showing the proper way to “feel” the loss of princess Diana and some newspapers even took it on themselves to chastise her real family for not putting on suitable public displays of emotion! :eek: At least the British public had the subsequent grace to be thoroughly embarrassed by this.

Closer to home, you may recall Mickey Harte’s talking about his daughter with a couple of days of her murder. He wasn’t a quivering wreck, he didn’t break down every few second. He gave an even and moving account of what his daughter meant to him and those who knew her.

In short, there is not a “right” way to feel or to show your feelings in your darkest hours. Some totally disintegrate emotionally, some don’t. Alas, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it would seem there are some who will continue to persist with this rather odious notion that there is a right way to respond emotionally in times of personal anguish.

By the same token Michaela s mother couldnt speak at all , she was so devestated and traumatised .

iamwhoiam

TommyTippee wrote: »

This is the reaction from the husband of Michaela Harte on the topic of him being made a suspect following her murder in Mauritius:

"Yeah, that happened," he said, adding: "When you're at rock bottom it doesn't really matter anymore what anyone says or does."

[http://www.independent.ie/national-news/when-i-saw-michaela-in-the-bath-i-grabbed-her-and-screamed-2625885.html]

Interesting to read this and think of the McCanns' anger at being questioned. Different circumstances, sure, but it made me think about the case again and how I would react if I was completely innocent.

I am pretty sure I would get on with ruling myself out so that they would concentrate on finding the real criminal(s), instead of refusing to answer questions and leaving the country at the first opportunity following questioning.

The very same thing struck me when I saw Michaela husband being interviewd , that he didnt care who asked what as long as the truth came out .

maebee

Hi lugha,

Have you read the Official Police Files and if so, what do you think of them?
Do you discount the findings of the Portuguese and British police?

maebee