Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

DexyDrain

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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".

Oh come on now. Jane goes off on this bizarre story that she thought Spanish police were about to abduct her somehow with the help of English police, Bob Small, Stuart Prior and the PJ. Do you think that is a credible explanation for being flustered and incoherent? The PJ named him as a suspect shortly after she picked him out, Bob Small and the officers in the van contact Amaral to say she identified him. Yet you want to believe Kate and Jane who say she was just a bit incoherent because she thought she was about to be abducted by three separate police forces???

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

Have you read the study, I really urge you to, it should change your mind. This was the most extreme test, the subjects were less than 2 hours dead, they never came in direct contact with the carpet tiles, the tiles were in proximity with the bodies for 2 mins and 10 mins and tested approx 1 month and 2 months later. One dog was 98% accurate in these worse case scenario tests, the others not far behind. There were controls from living people and contaminated sources.

The performance was nothing short of spectacular, meaning well trained dogs should be pretty much 100% accurate where a body has been in direct contact with a surface for any period of time as soon as 2 hours or more after time of death.

Now, let's give you the very worst possible performane under insanely demanding conditions and they lose 10% reliability. These dogs indicated on 8 occasions. To give 8 false positives on items associated with a particular person, you have to multiply the odds of getting it wrong in one case. The odds are staggeringly against 8 false positives associated with the same certain suspects and none against the controls whatsoever.

The studys also says the reason they are not admissible as evidence is because the exact combination of substances they are detecting has not been determined, putrescine and cadaverine on their own is not enough to trigger an indication from the dogs. It has to be whatever a body produces in combination. Reliability is not an issue, the issue is stating explicitly what chemical compounds or combinations they have detected that is specific to a dead body.

AudreyHepburn

dark crystal wrote: »

You see, this is where posters who claim to be objective and see all sides fall down for me.

You haven't read the McCanns's side of the story, but probably have read many snippets from Amaral's book (courtesy of the many links and quotes provided by certain posters). This is where the thread has become pretty one sided in my view.

I know Audrey has read the McCann's book and the quotes she posted from it were pretty much treated with contempt, yet the quotes posted from Amaral's book are thanked repeatedly and used as a rope to hang the McCann's with.

I don't know, unless any new real and concrete evidence comes to light from either side, I don't see how it's fair to keep repeatedly insinuating the McCanns had a hand in the death of their daughter.

This is exactly what bothers me about this whole case, the double standards surrounding it.

You cannot say that Kate McCann's book should be taken with a pinch of salt because it is merely her opinion if you then proceed to treat Amaral's book as gospel. His is as much about laying out his opinions and experience as hers. Yet he is treated as infallible.

Or worse people point blank refuse to even consider what the McCanns have said over the years relating to Madeleine, only to then turn around and treat with contempt those who don't take Amaral's word as truth.

Hypocrasy and double standards seem to be buzzwords for this case.

The so-called 'damning' evidence is not that damning either when you look at it objectively. Whether people like it or not if the evidence was as conclusive as many are claiming the McCanns would have been locked up long ago.

I will accept there is always a possibilty the McCanns are involved but it is a slim one imo and so I will not be joining in the mindless accusing and insulting of a potentially innocent and grieving couple.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This is exactly what bothers me about this whole case, the double standards surrounding it.

You cannot say that Kate McCann's book should be taken with a pinch of salt because it is merely her opinion if you then proceed to treat Amaral's book as gospel. His is as much about laying out his opinions and experience as hers. Yet he is treated as infallible.

Or worse people point blank refuse to even consider what the McCanns have said over the years relating to Madeleine, only to then turn around and treat with contempt those who don't take Amaral's word as truth.

Hypocrasy and double standards seem to be buzzwords for this case.

The so-called 'damning' evidence is not that damning either when you look at it objectively. Whether people like it or not if the evidence was as conclusive as many are claiming the McCanns would have been locked up long ago.

I will accept there is always a possibilty the McCanns are involved but it is a slim one imo and so I will not be joining in the mindless accusing and insulting of a potentially innocent and grieving couple.

You are right to say that both book should be taken with a pinch of salt. I have no doubt that some of what is in either book is 100% true, just as some of what is in each book is nothing more than self serving agenda driven PR.


You say that if there was concrete evidence that the McCanns would be locked up. That is right and the reason why they are walking free is that there is not enough evidence to get a conviction. Short of a body turning up and it having something on it that proved they were involved they will never ne convicted. Maybe because they are totally innocent of any involvement in some accident their child had (and personally I think that if they did cover up a death, it was a death that was caused by some tragic accident and was not a murder) or maybe because they will never be proven to have had something to do with it.

But you say that if anyone looks with an objective eye that all the evidence against the McCanns can be dismissed. I don't quite agree with that because if the same objective eye is to look at what they declare as their evidence, then that evidence does not stand up to much digging.

I think if I was asked what my preference would be as to an outcome to this case, and assuming that the child is dead (which I think she is by now unfortunately) then my preference is that the body gets found and that it has some evidence on it that lead to police to an abductor that had nothing to do with the McCanns, and that abductor first has the full weight of the law thrown at him/her and then suffers badly in prison for whoever long they survive there.

If the McCanns where found to have had something to do with it, then part of me would want to see them punished for everything they did that night and for everything since, but part of me would not want to see that due to the fact of how that would mean the twins would lose their parents.

It is an emotive case, and there is plenty about it that simply does not add up for me, but if the McCanns get proven guilty for something it could just as easily be for trying to cover up the check times as it would be for the main crime itself. I have a feeling there will be more twists and turns in this case in the next few years though, and I will be keeping an eye out for the McCann's push to get new legislation brought in that protects the relatives of missing people through legal channels from police investigation amongst other things (which seems an odd thing for totally innocent people to want), and she is also saying that the same legislation should say that the surviving relatives get looked after financially (again a bit odd given the amount of financial aid they have already received)


There is no good outcome with this case though. The best case scenario is the one I mentioned with someone being caught and convicted for the crime. That "best case" scenario still leaves a family without their daughter.

iamwhoiam

I take both accounts and both books with an equal amount of salt .But what is there to see and clear to see I form an opinion on .I have my opinion on where and why and how the kids were left and nothing changes the geography .

DerekWaters

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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

Your input on this issue has been tremendous, nice work.

Like you I really struggle to understand how any parent who suspects their child has been drugged would just monitor their external behaviour especially someone with a medical background like K McCann.

Aishae

im not surprised that this thread is still going - its a case that has really gripped peoples attention for the last 4 years. but still, wow!

its been said so many times in this thread that many people wouldnt be surprised either way if the truth was found and madeleine HAD been abducted, had died of an accident or even much more sinister occurances. however strange.

most of us would find it hard to imagine this kind of scenario:
covering up a death, accidentally causing the death and covering it up or - as the more extreme theories go: actually planning it. i doubt the last one myself.
its hard to imagine something happening when you feel pretty sure in yourself you'd never do that though.

but history has shown these things do happen. people can be capable of quite a LOT.
and thats what i feel most of the 'on the fence' people are probably thinking.

a question to ask yourself though. if the parents in cases like this were never questioned then how can we know that there was no foul play? especially when they have other kids that you may need to worry about. if the parent is innocent then yeah its really gonna be tough fielding questions and suspcion and i feel for them. but how else are people gonna be caught in a crime?
wont people please think of the children - type of situation.

im still very much on the fence - this thread has provided food for thought (and a lot of it). the humane part of me would love to believe no one would do something to their child or cover anything up. but the part of me that understands what humans are capable of is what is keeping me on the fence.

perhaps scotland yard can shed light on it all or even solve it. otherwise id say the conspiracy theories will only mount

iamwhoiam

I have a sad feeling it will never be solved and be like Ben Needham and Mary Bell and others that simply dissapeared of the face of the earth . I only wish that Madeleine didnt suffer and is either dead within hours of being missed or looked after .But it doesnt seem likely as she was far too well known to be kept I fear .
I really dont know why it has to be a "them and us " spat , both sides have points to be explored and both camps info to share . Having said that I would really love Scotland Yard to uncover some truths and some evidence that could help in finding Madeleine or her body and someone would have to pay for harming a little girl . That would be fantastic .

I think there are alot of untruths , cover ups and lies in the story which has clouded a clear picture and that is Madeleines loss .

Chicke

Kate WAS aware on the night of the disappearance that the twins were possibly drugged.one of the tapas 7 who stayed in the apartment at the time has stated in her witness statement that she was continually going into the twins to check they were still breathing by putting her hand under their noses.
And of course ,they didn't wake up despite the drama and the fact that they were actually physically removed to another apartment
So,yes she should have got them checked,especially as a medic who would gave known the dangers
So again more lies from the book
I haven't read this book but I know from a few pages I gave read or have been quoted,that they can lie without reservation and it sickens me

iamwhoiam

Chicke wrote: »

Kate WAS aware on the night of the disappearance that the twins were possibly drugged.one of the tapas 7 who stayed in the apartment at the time has stated in her witness statement that she was continually going into the twins to check they were still breathing by putting her hand under their noses.
And of course ,they didn't wake up despite the drama and the fact that they were actually physically removed to another apartment
So,yes she should have got them checked,especially as a medic who would gave known the dangers
So again more lies from the book
I haven't read this book but I know from a few pages I gave read or have been quoted,that they can lie without reservation and it sickens me

Unless she already knew why they were in fact so soundly asleep .As for lies , Gerry blatently bent the truth about the window on the Late Late .Despite it being completely ruled out that the window was opened from outside, Gerry still on the LLS said it was opened . I dont understand why he would do that and think no one was listening ?

mrsbyrne

Why would you think that Gerry would have to just blindly obediently agree with the opinion of whoever said that the windows couldnt be opened? You are entitled to believe every iota the PJ utter, if thats what suits you, but its not a criminal offence to have a different opinion.

maebee

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Why would you think that Gerry would have to just blindly obediently agree with the opinion of whoever said that the windows couldnt be opened?

It is not an opinion that the window couldn't be opened from the outside. It has been proven so. Gerry McCann lied. (late now, but I'll look for links tomorrow to support this)

You are entitled to believe every iota the PJ utter.

As you are, to believe every iota the McCanns utter.

if thats what suits you, but its not a criminal offence to have a different opinion

.

Indeed.

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

DexyDrain wrote: »

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".


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

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




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.

Refering to Jane Tanner the Link you sent me a couple of week's ago she does state she didn't see Murat & "no no" she wasn't saying it was Murat, I remember reading it & thinking what is she meaning? I did put a post up saying I wasn't with the Murat stuff at the time I still don't understand most of it but sure I will eventually catch up:o

I didn't know this so the Mcs commented to the PJ regarding their twins may have been drugged & no test's we're done? How very strange! Wonder why this wasn't picked up on by the Pj?! A very big mistake on their part!

I do however have to say any Parent thinking this had taken place would have Run to the nearest hospital to get their children tested, trust me I would have Mowed down anything in my Path to get them children seen too, No matter who's toes I stood on nothing & no one would have stopped me! If they had been drugged their lives could have depended on fast action, So This I really don't get with the Mcs none action & that is their own telling of this too...Not very good really isit?! These Children we're let down by the Parent's & the PJ & to some extent their friends too! If it's true that some had noticed this too with the Twin's infact it's quite shocking to think all these intelligent people just stood around scratching their Ass :eek: Mind you some we're busy ringing the press so we must get our priorities right:rolleyes:
As for the searching i'm sure I would be demented if my child had gone missing I think I would be running everywhere in search, However I do have to say maybe this would be how I would want to act whether my Body would have allowed this I really don't know! Shock is a very strange thing!:)

Mistyeyes321

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Unless she already knew why they were in fact so soundly asleep .As for lies , Gerry blatently bent the truth about the window on the Late Late .Despite it being completely ruled out that the window was opened from outside, Gerry still on the LLS said it was opened . I dont understand why he would do that and think no one was listening ?

Oh my word never thought about it like that, So mrs M could have been planting the seed in the PJ mind just incase they we're tested?!:eek:

Mountainsandh

I do however have to say any Parent thinking this had taken place would have Run to the nearest hospital to get their children tested, trust me I would have Mowed down anything in my Path to get them children seen too, No matter who's toes I stood on nothing & no one would have stopped me!

Several times in the book KMcC says that she doesn't know why she did something or didn't do something, and when they are stupid things like leaving the kids she says she will never forgive herself, and tortures herself over it. This is not just about leaving the kids though, but ordinary mundane things too, sorry too tired to think of other examples right now.

Now of course you can take that as admitting that she must have committed a crime, blah di blah...
I see it more as just being honest and admitting that like all of us, she made mistakes, and felt the guilt like all of us, and had studid moments, like all of us.

So I think maybe you hit the nail on the head there Misty, and for some reason she just didn't get the kids tested there and then. Maybe she thought she was over-reacting. I'd know that feeling myself, I'm the type who stops the car in the driveway to run back in and check I haven't left the iron on, and I'm aware of how stupid I can be that way sometimes. I check my kids' breathing every night, they sleep so soundly, before I go to bed, I don't just check on them, if they're really still and quiet I just have to check that my perfectly healthy kids are breathing :). (I'm sure a lot of Mums can understand that though)

If I'm any bit stressed out in my life, I check everything twice as much.

So if she was anything like that, she could have just thought, ok, I'm over the top here, let's calm down, it's just me.
Maybe she just couldn't think straight enough to cop on that really she should have them seen by someone else, or bloods could be done. Maybe she thought : "No sign of distress, I'll watch them till morning then we'll do tests".

She may have well been an incompetent idiot there, in that situation. It doesn't make her a criminal imo.

Mountainsandh

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I have a sad feeling it will never be solved and be like Ben Needham and Mary Bell and others that simply dissapeared of the face of the earth . I only wish that Madeleine didnt suffer and is either dead within hours of being missed or looked after .But it doesnt seem likely as she was far too well known to be kept I fear .
I really dont know why it has to be a "them and us " spat , both sides have points to be explored and both camps info to share . Having said that I would really love Scotland Yard to uncover some truths and some evidence that could help in finding Madeleine or her body and someone would have to pay for harming a little girl . That would be fantastic .

I think there are alot of untruths , cover ups and lies in the story which has clouded a clear picture and that is Madeleines loss .

Yes. It's dreadful to think someone got away with it, maybe even more so when you believe the McCanns are innocent, like me, because then it means there is a very dangerous individual free to act again.

If they are guilty of accidentally killing their daughter like some believe on here, the McCanns are unlikely to ever repeat the same mistake.

But if they are telling the truth all along, imagine, right now, there probably is a person alive, free to go where they please, and do as they like, who abducted a little girl and quite likely killed her.

Mistyeyes321

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Several times in the book KMcC says that she doesn't know why she did something or didn't do something, and when they are stupid things like leaving the kids she says she will never forgive herself, and tortures herself over it. This is not just about leaving the kids though, but ordinary mundane things too, sorry too tired to think of other examples right now.

Now of course you can take that as admitting that she must have committed a crime, blah di blah...
I see it more as just being honest and admitting that like all of us, she made mistakes, and felt the guilt like all of us, and had studid moments, like all of us.

So I think maybe you hit the nail on the head there Misty, and for some reason she just didn't get the kids tested there and then. Maybe she thought she was over-reacting. I'd know that feeling myself, I'm the type who stops the car in the driveway to run back in and check I haven't left the iron on, and I'm aware of how stupid I can be that way sometimes. I check my kids' breathing every night, they sleep so soundly, before I go to bed, I don't just check on them, if they're really still and quiet I just have to check that my perfectly healthy kids are breathing :). (I'm sure a lot of Mums can understand that though)

If I'm any bit stressed out in my life, I check everything twice as much.

So if she was anything like that, she could have just thought, ok, I'm over the top here, let's calm down, it's just me.
Maybe she just couldn't think straight enough to cop on that really she should have them seen by someone else, or bloods could be done. Maybe she thought : "No sign of distress, I'll watch them till morning then we'll do tests".

She may have well been an incompetent idiot there, in that situation. It doesn't make her a criminal imo.

I can remember taking my Yougest to Playgroup on my day off & being struck with this sudden Panic that I had left a Pan of stew still Alight on the stove:eek: OMG I was like a Whore on a Honder getting back home to find I had turned it off Phew!. So I do get what your saying I know how dizzy we can all be at times Male & Female:eek: I also know that fear that hits you like thunder I must check they're still breathing because they're to quite, I remember going to sleep onenight & waking up the following morning & my baby hadn't woken for her feed, Talk about sheer terror hitting you! There she was snug as a bug fast asleep but I had to pick her up & check she was ok & she was my 3rd child! So I do get all this...I still cannot understand the Mcs not getting them checked out I just can't because it doesn't make sense to me it's just commen sense IMO & even more so if one of my children was missing & I thought for one minute someone had also given the babies a drug any parent would get them checked out! Leaving & checking them for distress it doesn't work like that with a drug over dose because by morning it could be to late to do anything about it, As adult's they should have known this nevermind the fact they're both Medically trained...I never said it makes her a Criminal...

Mistyeyes321

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I have a sad feeling it will never be solved and be like Ben Needham and Mary Bell and others that simply dissapeared of the face of the earth . I only wish that Madeleine didnt suffer and is either dead within hours of being missed or looked after .But it doesnt seem likely as she was far too well known to be kept I fear .
I really dont know why it has to be a "them and us " spat , both sides have points to be explored and both camps info to share . Having said that I would really love Scotland Yard to uncover some truths and some evidence that could help in finding Madeleine or her body and someone would have to pay for harming a little girl . That would be fantastic .

I think there are alot of untruths , cover ups and lies in the story which has clouded a clear picture and that is Madeleines loss .

Not sure if your refering to the same Mary Bell here, Mary bell wasn't a Missing child, She was infact convicted of Manslaughter of two children..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell. ALL CHEER MISTY HAS POSTED A LINK:pac::pac:

chucken1

This Thread was closed..then opened again.

It WAS about the book??

I wish IF MY CHILD WAS MISSING

Id have all you on the case..


Fantastic lots of b s

HAVE you LOT any clue about the LAW IN PORTUGAL

AskMyChocolate

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.

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.

Sorry, but is it not the position of the British and Portuguese police forces that Madeleine died in the apartment and her body was disposed of?

You on the other hand choose to believe Kate McCann who may be a suspect in the case.

Am I missing something here, or are you arguing the point that you are a fool?

AskMyChocolate

dark crystal wrote: »

Those findings were not deemed reliable enough to warrant a prosecution by either police force. The McCanns are innocent in the eyes of the law, whether you believe them or not.

The police forces findings were largely based on theory, as there was no direct evidence to link the McCanns to any crime, nor was there a body found on which to base any of their theories.

Some of the speculations on this thread have very much veered into conspiracy theory territory....hence the mod note a page back.

This is something that I have found deeply troubling throughout this thread.

Could I ask you DC, do you actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty? I hope either you don't have children, or if you do, that you don't bring them up with these values.

A person's innocence or guilt of actions of which they are accused has nothing to do with proof. Are you capable of understanding this simple fact?

The guilt or innocence of a person is defined solely by whether or not they committed the actions of which they are accused.

They are "not guilty" in the eyes of the law (as it should be) unless it can be proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they committed the actions of which they are accused.

Whether they are innocent or guilty has nothing to do with the law. Do you understand this simple fact? Because sometimes it comes across as if you believe that if you steal an apple from a shop you actually haven't done it unless it can be proven.

AskMyChocolate

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

Sorry Mountain,

I accept that they have asked for the investigation to be reviewed, but could you tell me whether they have ever asked for the case to be re-opened? I can't find a credible link to show that they have. Have you got one?

Cheers

Choco

AskMyChocolate

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

Y'see this is the sort of distracted thinking that seems perfectly plausible and natural to any impartial observer. I wouldn't have expected her to be out searching for Madeleine that night.

AskMyChocolate

Mountainsandh wrote: »

DexyDrain wrote: »

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".


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

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




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.

So why didn't she get them done instead of waiting four months ?

It's not as if she didn't have the capacity/connections/wherewithal.

barone

lest we not forget the other two innocent victims in this case,

sean and amelie, madeleine's brother and sister, what does the future hold for them,and how much will it affect their lives as they grow older.

i hope the truth comes out one way or another before their lives are consumed with this case aswell.

Silver Moon

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Sorry Mountain,

I accept that they have asked for the investigation to be reviewed, but could you tell me whether they have ever asked for the case to be re-opened? I can't find a credible link to show that they have. Have you got one?

Cheers

Choco

The McCanns do NOT want the investigation to be re-opened - that is for definite. They have asked many times for a review (although that is actually what happened after Amaral left the case) but they have NEVER requested it to be re-opened, depsite them having the power to do so. All they have to do is pick up a phone and call the PJ.

Chicke

So she admits that the drug test wasn't necessarily accurate.They had originally gotten the test done to prove their innocence in the drugging of their children
They used it as part of the dossier provided to the police by their lawyers to demolish the evidence against them and the test has been reported as proving their innocence(see telegraph nov 2007)
So,by her own admission ,she waited until the tests were unreliable to get the tests done.
Playing the system deliberately.
So,thus raises more questions about this couple...

and yes I'm a mother too with three kids the exact same age as those children were in 2007 and i check on their breathing too.
But if she had the question of drugging in her mind any mother would have got them tested.any mother.
And it has been claimed that she wasn't possibly in her right mind not knowing what to do etc that night
But she had the presence of mind to delete her telephone records!!
And she didn't get her children tested?????

One confusion I have is that I thought I read from the police records that the police requested the drugs test not the other way around and that the mccanns refused
Anyone any info?

iamwhoiam

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Not sure if your refering to the same Mary Bell here, Mary bell wasn't a Missing child, She was infact convicted of Manslaughter of two children..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bell. ALL CHEER MISTY HAS POSTED A LINK:pac::pac:

You are right , I remember the Mary Bell case and I have no idea my fingers wrote Bell when I meant Mary Boyle .I Donegal in the 70;s I think she dissapeared off the face of the earth while walking across to her Grandads house

iamwhoiam

Silver Moon wrote: »

The McCanns do NOT want the investigation to be re-opened - that is for definite. They have asked many times for a review (although that is actually what happened after Amaral left the case) but they have NEVER requested it to be re-opened, depsite them having the power to do so. All they have to do is pick up a phone and call the PJ.

Can I ask what the difference is in review and re open ? Does review mean that they want a new look at the evidence already gathered ?

TommyTippee

chucken1 wrote: »

This Thread was closed..then opened again.

It WAS about the book??

I wish IF MY CHILD WAS MISSING

Id have all you on the case..


Fantastic lots of b s

HAVE you LOT any clue about the LAW IN PORTUGAL

What?

Show Time

barone wrote: »

lest we not forget the other two innocent victims in this case,

sean and amelie, madeleine's brother and sister, what does the future hold for them,and how much will it affect their lives as they grow older.

i hope the truth comes out one way or another before their lives are consumed with this case aswell.

If Kate and Gerry had been low earners on the income scale then you could bet the twins would have been taken from them in the first week.