Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

maebee

dark crystal wrote: »

NO ONE has said they were right to leave their kids that evening, but they did and their daughter has gone. They owe no one an apology, except Madeleine.

Which they have never done, in all their media appearances in the last 4 years.

I certainly don't want to hear them begging the public at large for forgiveness, because it really isn't anyone else's place to forgive.

All they've ever begged the public for is money. They have never taken responsibility for their recklesness. They have blamed everyone under the sun for the disappearance of their daughter. Whatever way you look at it, they are responsible. They left her in an apartment from where she disappeared.

If they disagree with many of the police findings, perhaps it's because they believe the police have been barking up entirely the wrong tree this whole time and have not been targetting the right culprit/s. If they are indeed innocent, put yourself in their shoes.....would you not criticise such findings?

Please read the files and the conclusions of the Portuguese and British Police.

There were drug samples taken from Kate and the twins - no drugs of any kind were found in their hair samples.

4 months after the event and the twins' haircuts in between, as per Gerry McCann's blogs.

Lie detector tests were more than likely vetoed by their lawyer and besides, such evidence is inadmissable in court.

Yes, we know that lie detector tests are inadmissable in court but if you're not lying, why would you not do one, just to prove so?

Deleting calls is not a crime. Given the amount of messages and calls they must have received during the period, it is not a huge leap of faith to believe their mailboxes may easily have been full to capacity.

Of course it's not a crime. But if my child was missing, the very last thing on my mind would be to delete my text messages. I would be doing nothing else other than searching for my child, which the McCanns did not do.

Again, this is old ground we keep covering here....

Well, it's an on-going story that we're interested in. There will be more to this story. SY are now on the case and the McCanns are taking journalists and TV Presenters to the courts. If I were in Kate McCann's shoes, I woudn't give a fig about lawyers and sueing people etc. I would be spending every minute of my life on my hands and knees in PDL looking for my daughter. The McCanns never did this. Why?

dark crystal

Which they have never done, in all their media appearances in the last 4 years. All they've ever begged the public for is money. They have never taken responsibility for their recklesness. They have blamed everyone under the sun for the disappearance of their daughter. Whatever way you look at it, they are responsible. They left her in an apartment from where she disappeared.

I have heard Kate express great remorse over her actions that night. She said as much on the Late Late Show and in her book. As I said, they owe no one but Madeleine an apology.
Whatever way I look at it, they are only partially responsible if an abduction took place. the abductor must also hold responsibility for their actions. If you leave your home unlocked and you get burgled, the burglar is still responsible for the theft of your goods. A clumsy analogy, but you get my point...

Please read the files and the conclusions of the Portuguese and British Police.

Maebee, I HAVE read them. Please read what I wrote about putting yourselves in the shoes of the McCanns if they are innocent and the point I was making there.

4 months after the event and the twins' haircuts in between, as per Gerry McCann's blogs.

This does not nullify the results.

Yes, we know that lie detector tests are inadmissable in court but if you're not lying, why would you not do one, just to prove so?

Prove to whom? If they know they are innocent, it makes not a jot of difference. If they were to do it for the police, what bearing would that possibly have on any prosecution case anyway?

Of course it's not a crime. But if my child was missing, the very last thing on my mind would be to delete my text messages. I would be doing nothing else other than searching for my child, which the McCanns did not do.

It is pointless to judge them by what you might do in such a situation. Having (thankfully) never been in such a situation, who can say what they may or may not have done is wrong or suspect. We don't know why their calls were deleted, we can only speculate. Perhaps they were expecting important phone calls and made space in their phone for that purpose - who knows?

Well, it's an on-going story that we're interested in. There will be more to this story. SY are now on the case and the McCanns are taking journalists and TV Presenters to the courts. If I were in Kate McCann's shoes, I woudn't give a fig about lawyers and sueing people etc. I would be spending every minute of my life on my hands and knees in PDL looking for my daughter. The McCanns never did this. Why?

SY are indeed on the case, at the bequest of the McCanns themselves.

Again, you are not in Kate McCanns shoes, so what you would and wouldn't have done in the same situation is a moot point.

The McCanns did search for Madeleine. In fact, a good portion of the Madeleine fund was spent on following up witness reported sightings.

The old ground I was talking about, was concerning the questions put to me by BulkF. They have all been covered extensively in the thread.

Silver Moon

dark crystal wrote: »

SY are indeed on the case, at the bequest of the McCanns themselves.

The McCanns did search for Madeleine. In fact, a good portion of the Madeleine fund was spent on following up witness reported sightings.

couple of quick points - the McCanns mot certainly DID NOT request the involvment of Scotland Yard and they have NOT searched for their missing daughter

NTMK

dark crystal wrote: »

This does not nullify the results.

It does a cut after 3 months of hair growth is enough to remove any trace from the body with the exception of the spinal fluid

Mountainsandh

Again, from the book you won't believe :
" Friday 4 May... As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we'd never seen before, having barely left the OC complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don't let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."

Madeleine, KMcC, p.83, Ch 6.

A lot of things on this thread have been stated as facts, when really they are taken from sources such as anti-McCs blogs, and tabloids.

We all have to choose who to believe, and I choose to believe the McCanns, rather than the tabloids and blogs anyway.

dark crystal

Silver Moon wrote: »

couple of quick points - the McCanns mot certainly DID NOT request the involvment of Scotland Yard and they have NOT searched for their missing daughter

They certainly requested an independant review of the case from David Cameron:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13378289

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-pm-review

As for the search aspect, did they not do a tour of quite a few European countries trying to raise awareness, after witnesses reported seeing Madeleine in various locations?

I'll try and search for that info....


Edit: Mountainsandh seems to have found some relevant info for me there...

dark crystal

NTMK wrote: »

It does a cut after 3 months of hair growth is enough to remove any trace from the body with the exception of the spinal fluid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570315/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-takes-drug-test.html

Edward Smethurst, the lawyer coordinating the McCanns' defence, said: "Hair grows by about a centimetre a month so if you have eight centimetres of hair, you can test for drugs going back eight months.
"With the appropriate, fully-accredited experts, hair samples were taken from Sean, Amelie and Kate and the conclusion was no evidence of sedatives or drugs were found.
"There were various stories circulating that Kate might somehow be unstable and might be depressed and whatever else, but the tests demonstrate that the kind of drugs she might be on did not show up."

Mountainsandh

"We are still pressing the British and Portuguese government to do more, or at least something. A year after our request for a review of Madeleine's case, Alan Johnson, the second home secretary we had met, commissioned CEOP to undertake a "scoping" exercise _ basically to establish whether they felt a review may be of benefit. Their report has been with the Home Office since March 2010."
KMcC. p. 366

Silver Moon, this is Kate McCann, in her book. What are your sources ? If we're talking Daily Mail, or themccannsfiles. something, I'm again choosing to believe KMcC.

Mountainsandh

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

I for one would hate to think I have upset any of you personally because it hasn't been intentional if I have....Please keep posting everyone!.

Mistyeyes321 I have to say it's great to be able to discuss this, with you, and Maebee for example, and remain civil.
Although I SO SO much disagree with a lot of what you are stating, Maebee
Having said that the theory accidental death is the most plausible of the anti McCs scenari imo. The cover up part of it though, I just couldn't go along with, even if I wasn't convinced that this is not what happened.

Storing the body somewhere on the night, acting merry and gay at the Tapas, keeping quiet about it all, and disposing of your daughter's corpse 25 days later... zero plausibility in my eyes.

NTMK

dark crystal wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570315/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-takes-drug-test.html

if the hair was shorter than 3cm would leave remove any trace from the night she was taken

Mountainsandh

I don't know the exact timeline, but on returning to UK, this is how long the hair was on kids (probably shorter on Sean's) :
http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00007/mccanns_7609c.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/the-mccanns-return-to-britain-13385009.html&usg=__nIFiVxGcUi3ZaAddgsXREWjKklw=&h=251&w=226&sz=13&hl=en&start=0&zoom=0&tbnid=_QAI1Z-UUDI7cM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=100&ei=--77TYeWN8ek8QPPpKyqCQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmccanns%2Breturn%2Bto%2BUK%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D583%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=328&vpy=125&dur=406&hovh=111&hovw=100&tx=105&ty=41&page=1&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&biw=1345&bih=583

edit : you would well have the 8cm with Amelie in any case, probably around 5 ish for Sean.

dark crystal

NTMK wrote: »

if the hair was shorter than 3cm would leave remove any trace from the night she was taken

Do you know how short 3cm is?? it's approximately 1 1/2 inches!

Are you suggesting the twins hair was cut that tightly? Not a chance in Amelies case.

From the article I quoted earlier:

The McCanns' two-year-old twins, Sean and Amelie, have also been tested to prove they were never given sedatives, after claims that Madeleine may have died of an accidental overdose .......
The drug tests, which were conducted in September, form part of a dossier of evidence compiled by the McCanns' legal team to demolish the police case against them.

That's 4 months after the disappearance. They only needed 4cms of hair to test back to the date in question.

mrsbyrne

I know snoop at PFA2 wont mind if i post this here. Note i am not ashamed to mention that i post on a particular forum.
Motive, means, opportunity, and indicative character history.

There is not a single, credible, coherent account of how the parents (and/or friends) could or would have committed the crime of disposing of Madeleine’s body. Nor is there any evidence that they did so. No case, indicative or otherwise, could be constructed by the PT police, and none has been subsequently by any of the internet colombos following this case.

We accordingly have 2 anti camps: those who simply invent outlandish stories piled on top of each other to account for the key questions. And those who simply avoid them, dwelling instead on their ‘suspicions’ and snippets of information, considered entirely in isolation of they key questions.

The dog alerts, the samples, the forensic analysis - all have been put under the microscope by those less qualified than the experts who conducted the investigation, and in every case, our forumistas consider themselves qualified to cast doubt upon the actual findings.

This is wishful thinking with no more credibility than the crazy conspiracy theories. It is all there in the reports: no evidence. And not only no evidence, but no expert opinion backing up the, er, forum experts. Martin grime does not say: ‘no forensic evidence but my dogs are never wrong and I consider this highly indicative that a corpse was present’. No, he says the alerts are only ‘suggestive’ of contaminant and that ‘no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from them’. Unless or until one of our forum ‘experts’ can produce the credentials to challenge the findings under peer review conditions, I think I’ll stick with the real experts, and anyone who does otherwise is a fool.

And even if you narcissistically believe your suspicions to have sufficient weight to cast doubt on the experts in the confines of your egotistical mind (cos it means F all in the real world), you still need to account for the basics: who, when, why, where, how.

A word on ‘demeanour’ because this keys into character. Its often claimed that the McCanns demeanour was inappropriate for the events. If you actually read the accounts of those around them, who have seen them, over time, it seems to be entirely within normal range: hope, despair, grief, determination; and caused no suspicions amongst those qualified to comment. To maintain the ‘demeanour’ accusation, demands that our pitchforkers selectively analyse mere moments in the thousands of hours that have passed since the events, and pin entire character histories and accusations to these fragments of time. Caught smiling – must be guilty. Reported to be crying – must be acting.

The illogicality and sheer nastiness of this particular line of suspicion in incredible. There is no manual on how to respond to a tragedy, and history is full of examples of people reacting in all sorts of ways. Rarely can it ever be analysed as an indicator of complicity, and in the few cases that it can be, there is a substantial and clear evidence base analysed over time by those qualified to do so. Not by pitchforkers who hate the sight of them, and twist anything and everything to suit their pre-set agenda.

More significantly, there is absolutely no character history to indicate any of these people have the psychological mind set to both commit a terrible crime (perfectly) and then go on to parade their criminality in our faces though setting up a fraudulent fund and barefaced maintaining the lie over a substantial period of time. Any ‘normal’ person attempting to do this would have collapsed under the strain. Only a psychopath could maintain such a level of incongruity, and there is nothing in either character history (let alone both or more) to indicate psychopathy. Psychopaths cannot sustain careers, jobs, friendships, relationships; they lie, cheat and damage people around them. Anyone who has ever been ‘close’ to a psychopath knows it, even if they cannot put a diagnostic term upon it. Psychopaths are not created overnight, they leave a long history trail behind them, and there is nothing in the McCann family histories to indicate anything of the sort, and significant indicators to rule them out of this category. These are facts.

And finally, statistics: statistically the likelihood of the parents pulling off the most successful and audacious crime in living memory under the circumstances we know is incalculable, because it would be unprecedented, therefore it is statistically far less likely than an abduction. Its that simple.

And still, there is motive, means and opportunity to be accounted for.

No motive: Most that have ever been offered -such as risk of loss of career, status etc, are predicated upon a psychopath’s response to a situation, and there is no evidence to substantiate this, nothing to suggest these people would be anything but devastated and immobilised by grief had they found their child dead. Accordingly, more and more bizarre motives are invented, all without any evidence base. Illegal drugs, swinging, paedophilia, murder. Nothing to support any of these claims.

No means: How would these parents have disposed of a body, unseen? Only by resorting to methods that are again predicated upon an assumption of psychopathy. Stuffing bodies into bags, burying them on the beach, digging them up again, freezing them, driving around with a corpse in your car, nipping off between media appearances to dig graves without even breaking sweat, wandering brazenly through PDL openly with the corpse of your child in your arms. All without being spotted, or your actions being discovered, or the body ever being found. None of this is credible, not for one moment.

No opportunity: to have done all or any the above would take an army of resources and local knowledge, it would certainly take more than two people (thereby increasing the unliklihood of it having happened), it would have taken ‘staging’ of proportions the opera house would struggle to muster, since no person was absent from others view for anything like the time required to pull these stunts off. It just didn’t happen.

I’ve heard it all before, and no where, no time, has any anti ever come up with a credible refutation of what I have posted here. Yes, I have heard all the stories about parents who hid their child’s body. Yes I’ve heard the stories of those who pretended to be looking, or set up some sort of fund. Yes I’ve heard all about medical negligence. Yes, I know far too much about the psychopaths and narcissists who have blighted the lives of a rather high percentage of the hater types on these forums. But there is not, by definition, any existing case that can compound all these factors to draw a parallel.

And part parallels are pointless. Anyone can stitch together a patchwork of completely disparate and separate events and link them to different parts of the case, but that in no way makes the coalescence of all these types of events into this one event in any way possible let alone likely. Anyone can pick one picture and wonder about the quality of the expression on someone’s face. Anyone can pick one piece of information from the files and, in exclusivity from all other pieces, wonder if there isn’t more to the story. This is not thoughtful, this is not credible curiosity, this is not intelligent reasoning, this is not the pursuit of truth and justice, it’s a witchunt.

Silver Moon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

"We are still pressing the British and Portuguese government to do more, or at least something. A year after our request for a review of Madeleine's case, Alan Johnson, the second home secretary we had met, commissioned CEOP to undertake a "scoping" exercise _ basically to establish whether they felt a review may be of benefit. Their report has been with the Home Office since March 2010."
KMcC. p. 366

Silver Moon, this is Kate McCann, in her book. What are your sources ? If we're talking Daily Mail, or themccannsfiles. something, I'm again choosing to believe KMcC.

that's not asking for Scotland Yard is it?

NTMK

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I know snoop at PFA2 wont mind if i post this here. Note i am not ashamed to mention that i post on a particular forum.
Motive, means, opportunity, and indicative character history.

There is not a single, credible, coherent account of how the parents (and/or friends) could or would have committed the crime of disposing of Madeleine’s body. Nor is there any evidence that they did so. No case, indicative or otherwise, could be constructed by the PT police, and none has been subsequently by any of the internet colombos following this case.

Theres no evidence of them killing her and there is no evidence of an abduction

i think most people believe that there was an accident and the parents covered it up to protect themselves

I dont blame people for not believing the mccanns because the witness stories have changed too much and the lies that the mccanns have told and also the fact that they neglected their kids

Mountainsandh

No Silver Moon, not specifically Scotland Yard. I suppose it's not really like you can pick a police force and say : well, I'd like my investigation to be reviewed by them !
They are asking for some police force to carry out a review, possibly both British and Portuguese together. The way they have of asking is to go through the government/home secretary, not to call at SY's offices and ask to see the manager, if you see what I mean.

My quote was picked because it was short, but the state of their request is pages 364 to 367, in case you want to have a quick gander at the book in a shop.

iamwhoiam

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Again, from the book you won't believe :
" Friday 4 May... As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we'd never seen before, having barely left the OC complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don't let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."

Madeleine, KMcC, p.83, Ch 6.

A lot of things on this thread have been stated as facts, when really they are taken from sources such as anti-McCs blogs, and tabloids.

We all have to choose who to believe, and I choose to believe the McCanns, rather than the tabloids and blogs anyway.

As far as I know and I am open to correction , this was mentioned a few times ,.Kate and Gerry have said they went down to the beach and searched for an hour . It still seems very odd to me that in all that time they searched for an hour .Locals in P da Luz took time off work and closed business and searched for weeks .

DexyDrain

There is no plausible explanation why several of the Tapas group would seek to implicate an entirely innocent man, being the only witnesses claiming to see Murat when he was not there. There is no plausible explanation why Jane Tanner would identify him on the street when he is about as far from her description as it is possible to be.

The dogs reliability has been scientifically proven, some have claimed the results show a 10% margin of error however it is important to understand in these tests the materials were never in direct contact with a corpse, just placed near one. That is extraordinary reliability and the scientists who conducted the study do not hide how impressed they were with these results.

The hair tests were carried out by the McCann's legal team and were not part of the investigation, therefore we have no independent corroboration of how the samples were collected and what substances exactly had been tested for. If this evidence of no sedation was so strong, how come it was not presented at the trial of Amaral or the appeal? I can find no reference to it. It would go a long way towards cutting the legs from under his theory yet it was not produced.

If the tests were done, why is Kate still wondering about sedation of the twins in the book?? Surely she has those answers in her own 'dossier'?
Odd. If we are supposed to believe their tests ruled this out, why is Kate not convinced?

Mrs Byrne, that quoted post really is a triumph of hope over experience, the reason we have long, detailed testimony by expert witnesses at trials is precisely because the means, method and motive in most cases are convoluted, not easy to explain and require expert guidance for jurors to fully grasp the facts. Anyone familiar with the criminal justice system would love to sit you all down and regale stories of bodies on Dublin Bus rides, decapitated heads under park benches, parts of weighted bodies washing ashore months, years later, limbs found in freezers, bodies in boots, decaying parents in armchairs, bodies on extended tours of the country, shallow graves etc. etc. There really are very, very few scenarios that are unprecedented or implausible.
Who would have thought a psychopath would have attacked a victim and stuffed her in his boot before heading off to pay a co-worker with her still alive?

You are not demonstrating open minded thinking, you really should try it on for size. Not answers, conclusions, verdicts, just words and thoughts. It is not immoral, it is not illogical, it is not judgemental, it is simulation of competing scenarios that explain certain events.

Mountainsandh

From what I gather from the book, during the night, Gerry and other men there went searching several times. KMcC was minding the twins and on standby for whatever might be required/happening at the OC. She was also distraught, and I think (that's only my opinion) she didn't have the cop on to say : "I'm doing this now". She must have wanted to be with the twins, and also to be on the spot in case Madeleine was found. She says in the book she "didn't quite know where to put herself", or something to that effect. I know I would be lost myself in that situation too, I'm sure in theory or in hindsight I would think that I'd run outside and search and search and search, but I might just end up in too useless a state to actually decide anything.
They didn't know when the police would turn up in the morning, hadn't been told what was going on, what was going to happen.
So they went as soon as a bit of light dawned (remember Gerry and friends had done the search in darkness too).
Then as the day went on, they were requested to be there for the police. By then other people had started searching, so I suppose it must have been a tremendous relief to know you could do all the other stuff knowing that searches were going on.

I'm the same as a lot of other posters on here. I think as a mother I would draw blood from my hands and feet searching until I dropped from exhaustion.
But we all react differently, and certainly in situ, we would all react differently. I could be an absolute blubbering wreck and not manage to get out the door to do any searching.

Mountainsandh

DexyDrain wrote: »

There is no plausible explanation why several of the Tapas group would seek to implicate an entirely innocent man, being the only witnesses claiming to see Murat when he was not there. There is no plausible explanation why Jane Tanner would identify him on the street when he is about as far from her description as it is possible to be.

According to KMcC in the book, Jane Tanner never formally identified Murat, the PJ put her on the spot, and while she was mumbling she wasn't sure, they took that as a statement that she did identify him. Again, it depends who you choose to believe, anti McC blogs/media, or KMcC.
I'm pretty sure the group's witness identification might have not have been as black and white as it was portrayed either, as in : they might not have identified him for sure, but their statement was taken as formal ID. As in : "we saw a man we think could be him on the night" turned into : " it was him, I'm sure of that".

The dogs reliability has been scientifically proven, some have claimed the results show a 10% margin of error

Not accepted as evidence, so not that reliable after all. 10% error is significant actually.

The hair tests were carried out by the McCann's legal team and were not part of the investigation,

That's because the Portuguese police failed to conduct them earlier. Eventually the McCs felt they had to do something.

If the tests were done, why is Kate still wondering about sedation of the twins in the book?? Surely she has those answers in her own 'dossier'?
Odd. If we are supposed to believe their tests ruled this out, why is Kate not convinced?

Because as she says herself in the book, they should really have been conducted way earlier, so they could be absolutely sure of their accuracy. Along with blood and urine, which weren't taken either after the event, although the McC had pointed out their suspicions that the twins had been sedated to the PJ the next day or on the night itself.

iamwhoiam

Mountainsandh wrote: »

DexyDrain wrote: »

Because as she says herself in the book, they should really have been conducted way earlier, so they could be absolutely sure of their accuracy. Along with blood and urine, which weren't taken either after the event, although the McC had pointed out their suspicions that the twins had been sedated to the PJ the next day or on the night itself.

She said on the Late Late or another talk show that week that she ,,Kate, put her hands on the twins chest to check they were breathing .She said she was afraid ,or has a suspicion , that the twins had been drugged .
A trained GP and a cardiac surgeon has a suspicion that two year olds had been drugged by an unknown person yet did not call for an ambulance or indeed a doctor ? They of all people would know the danger of over dosage in toddlers and should be the first to call for toxicology levels , and for observations and for the presence of oxygen and fluids if need be . If they did in fact suspect a stranger had drugged their toddlers why on earth did they not seek safety for them ?

lugha

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I would draw blood from my hands and feet searching until I dropped from exhaustion.
But we all react differently, and certainly in situ, we would all react differently.

There is another aspect to this point that those that accuse the McCanns don’t address. Their argument essentially is that the McCanns behaviour in not searching is not what you would expect from people whose daughter was genuinely missing. For the sake of argument let us concede that point and also, that they did not search, which is disputed.

The bit that they omit is that not searching is also not what you would expect from people who were trying to cover up the accidental death of their daughter with an abduction ruse. After all, the scenario being presented is that the McCanns were desperate to prevent their professional and family lives from being ruined if the truth came out. And to do so, they must involve themselves in a more serious crime of perverting the course of justice (at the very least).

It surely must be obvious to all that someone in that position would be especially careful not to attract suspicion and would almost certainly take part in a fake search to deflect any such suspicion. (The suggestion that they didn’t take part because they knew that there was no point is frankly daft.)

Thus declining to search is, arguably, not what you would expect if they were innocent. But neither is it what you would expect if they were guilty. Thus for me, you don’t really have evidence of anything, one way or the other.

If someone genuinely believes the guilty scenario is less implausible, then they can reason that there is something of evidential merit there. But if is simply dishonest to ignore the implausibility of guilty parties not taking some obvious steps to deflect suspicion.

weldoninhio

It will be interesting when the a/cs of the McCann Money-Making Company are released next year to see how much of the public donations are used to sue people who disagree or voice a different opinion of them.

Kess73

This does not nullify the results.

No it does not nullify, but it does weaken how valid the results are in relation to the night in question, and by a large degree. The error for margin in terms of the accuracy the McCanns claimed their own drug tests (and it was their own choice of tester and not the police who tested them) is far greater than that of the dogs for example. The tight haircuts given to the twins in the months it took to actually get the test done also meant the test ended up being done on newer hair follicles, something that further reduces the accuracy of the results.

Seems a bit strange that a mother who is a qualified GP who claimed that she suspected her remaining children were drugged would wait over four months to get those children checked out. She made the claims that she suspected the twins were drugged quite early in the investigation, but did nothing to check to see what her children may have had put into their systems?

Prove to whom? If they know they are innocent, it makes not a jot of difference. If they were to do it for the police, what bearing would that possibly have on any prosecution case anyway?

Well to back up claims they themselves made about wanting to take a lie detector test. They went on tv and said they were willing to take the tests, but as soon as they were asked they went on the attack over being asked. In short don't go on tv making claims that you are willing to do something and then act all outraged when asked.

It is pointless to judge them by what you might do in such a situation. Having (thankfully) never been in such a situation, who can say what they may or may not have done is wrong or suspect. We don't know why their calls were deleted, we can only speculate. Perhaps they were expecting important phone calls and made space in their phone for that purpose - who knows?

Now if it were just the McCann's phones that had all the texts and call logs deleted then that holds more water, but all nine people deleted everything from their phones. I can understand deleting texts to make room, but deleting the actual call logs? And then refusing to provide the phone bills with the calls on it? Which forced the police force to try and get that information from phone providers, something that was also objected to.

Now again it is just speculation on my behalf, but it is a bit unusual that all phones had to be wiped so quickly and the call logs also. But it could be down to expecting important texts or something like you said maybe.

SY are indeed on the case, at the bequest of the McCanns themselves.

They asked for the files to be reviewed but the stopped short of asking for SY to actually investigate it further. They did not register their child as an abduction in the UK and as such even if there was a SY investigation it cannot be investigated as an abduction, only as a disappeared person. Bit odd that they did not register their case as an abduction (and that option is there under UK law) when they claim so much that it was defo an abduction. Might have something to do with the fact that if you register a case under UK law as an abduction and it gets proven otherwise that the punishment is far more severe than what it is for the same thing in Portugal. In Portugal they insisted on the case being registered as an abduction btw.



Now nothing I said means that the McCanns had a hand in their daughter's disappearance, but a hell of a lot of odd things seem to have happened.

A lot of contradictions and coincidences. Kate herself in her book says something that in mind was quite ironic.

She stated that for one or two things to look odd it could be a coincidence, but that when it becomes a number of things that it cannot be coincidence. Now she meant this against the british and portugese police and a few other as far as I remember, but while she expects people to hang the police out on things she seems to think that the same standards do not apply to her and her husband.

Mountainsandh

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

She said on the Late Late or another talk show that week that she ,,Kate, put her hands on the twins chest to check they were breathing .She said she was afraid ,or has a suspicion , that the twins had been drugged .
A trained GP and a cardiac surgeon has a suspicion that two year olds had been drugged by an unknown person yet did not call for an ambulance or indeed a doctor ? They of all people would know the danger of over dosage in toddlers and should be the first to call for toxicology levels , and for observations and for the presence of oxygen and fluids if need be . If they did in fact suspect a stranger had drugged their toddlers why on earth did they not seek safety for them ?

She has worked as an anaesthesist. So really, if her children had been in danger, she would have known. And this is why she kept checking on them. I'm sure had there been any sign of distress she would have got them hospitalized. Oxygen and fluids : the kids were sleeping peacefully, not in a coma, you're watching too much ER .

What you are suggesting is that she should have thought of the forensic aspect of it and got her children tested for the sake of the investigation. A policeman's job really. And yes, they mentioned it to the police.

iamwhoiam

Mountainsandh wrote: »

She has worked as an anaesthesist. So really, if her children had been in danger, she would have known. And this is why she kept checking on them. I'm sure had there been any sign of distress she would have got them hospitalized. Oxygen and fluids : the kids were sleeping peacefully, not in a coma, you're watching too much ER .

What you are suggesting is that she should have thought of the forensic aspect of it and got her children tested for the sake of the investigation. A policeman's job really. And yes, they mentioned it to the police.

Actually I dont need to watch ER I am a paeds nurse and any child considered to have a toxic substance or drug need bloods to assess the toxicology and levels .Simply watching them in not enough, you need to monitor the chemistry and the urinary output at very least . They dont need fluids per se it depends on the levels and the output .,
So no , not even a trained anaesthetist can do it by feeling a chest raise and fall .But the issue for me is not who is qualified to watch a child who is suspected of having being drugged , it is the lack of seeking the attention they then need is my issue .
I have looked after aneasthetist children who have accidently taken a substance and they will seek help and not presume to be able to asses at home .And they will have known the substance and the amount .
For example I would have alot of anxiety that my kids had been given a dose of Paracetemol over the daily limit .Every doctor knows that it effects the liver days later and if brought in on time they can be given an anti dote . So Kate not knowing what was given , if it was given, and how much, should have taken those kids for monitoring in my opinion .
It is the least I would expect from someone who knows the dangers are silent and insidious .

Mountainsandh

Kess73, I do not mean to offend here, but really every time you post you are making all kinds of statements, and I do not remember seeing you source anything, except maybe to themccannfiles website. Do you have sources other than the blogs or tabloids ?

That Scotland Yard stuff, that's interesting, logging the investigation as such and such, but ...
a) do they really have a hand in this or does it have to be logged in by someone else ? (it seems a bit mad to me that private people should come forward and "log in" the abduction of their daughter, like you would declare your camera stolen or something)

b) where do you get all that information from ? Any more details available online ?

Mountainsandh

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Actually I dont need to watch ER I am a paeds nurse and any child considered to have a toxic substance or drug need bloods to assess the toxicology and levels .Simply watching them in not enough, you need to monitor the chemistry and the urinary output at very least . They dont need fluids per se it depends on the levels and the output .,
So no , not even a trained anaesthetist can do it by feeling a chest raise and fall .

Nobody knew for a fact they had been drugged though, did they ? The children were sleeping. Sleeping soundly. Kate kept an eye on that. There was no empty bottle of drugs beside them or anything. She says herself I think that it's not till a bit later, maybe towards morning, that she thought more clearly about it.

Remember, you are not talking about kids that seemed in breathing difficulty or in any kind of distress, you are talking about kids that simply slept soundly through a lot of commotion. They obviously stirred enough at some stage to reassure her, on the night.

iamwhoiam

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Nobody knew for a fact they had been drugged though, did they ? The children were sleeping. Sleeping soundly. Kate kept an eye on that. There was no empty bottle of drugs beside them or anything. She says herself I think that it's not till a bit later, maybe towards morning, that she thought more clearly about it.

Remember, you are not talking about kids that seemed in breathing difficulty or in any kind of distress, you are talking about kids that simply slept soundly through a lot of commotion. They obviously stirred enough at some stage to reassure her, on the night.

Exactly my point , Nobody knew if they had been drugged or not . #
Kate herself said cleary that she suspected they were drugged.Once again I repeat she said it and she knows that drugs are insidious .It doesnt show in their breathing or in their heartbeat it shows on a blood screen .Its simple and quick and can be checked with 3 mls of blood . Stirring in thier sleep is no indication of how much paracetemol in the little bodies .Stirring in their sleep is no indication if the liver is being damaged actually .
If I suspected my little kids were drugged by a stranger who had taken my other daughter is he likely to leave the bottle on the bed locker ? No , I would panic as to what was given , how much and when and I would be in a hospital and my kids checked .And so would most doctors and nurses and mothers and fathers that I know .Be they anaesthetists , paediatric consultants , GPs, nurses, electricians , brick layers or whatever .You see most parents wont take chances with a suspected drug ingestion .



A simple Calpol overdose has stringent guidelines .Just an example of many other guidelines for suspected overdoses

http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/chart.html

Kess73

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Kess73, I do not mean to offend here, but really every time you post you are making all kinds of statements, and I do not remember seeing you source anything, except maybe to themccannfiles website. Do you have sources other than the blogs or tabloids ?

That Scotland Yard stuff, that's interesting, logging the investigation as such and such, but ...
a) do they really have a hand in this or does it have to be logged in by someone else ? (it seems a bit mad to me that private people should come forward and "log in" the abduction of their daughter, like you would declare your camera stolen or something)

b) where do you get all that information from ? Any more details available online ?

I put up links many times on here and don't really see the point of putting up the same links every time I post on the same thing.

There is plenty available online as to the difference in UK law between registering a person as a disappeared person (it is called that rather than a missing person) and doing so as an abducted child.

The UK police force were the ones who confirmed what the case was registered as, and Gerry McCann then turned on the British police much as happened with the Portugese police.

Also the police files which have been linked on this thread a large number of times has this information.

As for your comment on how a case gets registered, the people making the registration can ask for a case to be registered as a certain type as long as what is known meets the criteria for that registration and you have the right legal advice to guide you and to let you know what the punishments are if you were found to have registered a false case. But as listed in the official police files, the case was registered differently in the UK than it was in Portugal. That struck me as odd as the McCann use the word abduction a lot and there is the option to register a case like their one as an official potenial abducted child, especially as it was already registered as a potential abduction in Portugal, but they did not go down this route in the UK.

The only reason that I can think of is that they are British/English citizens and if it were ever to be proven that the child was in fact not abducted then the penalties are much harsher in the UK for having submitted a false abduction registration than it is for a false disappeared person one.


Interestingly enough Kate McCann came out last month and said that the British governemnt need to bring in legislation to protect the rights of the relatives of missing people and also set up something to protect the relatives financially.