Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

mrsbyrne

Kess73 wrote: »

What conspiracy theory? The distance used by the police matches the official site records at the hotel.

So maybe the police got the measurement wrong, the people who drew up the plans for the hotel got their measurements wrong, and the plans of the finished hotel are wrong.


Some random guy who says he used google earth to check it is a far better source than what is already on record.

Are all Google Earths measurements wrong then!!! They sure will be p**sed when they hear this?

mrsbyrne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

The distance wont change if a tree is in leaf or not , the distance stays the same , too far to see your sleeping children .Be the leaves green or the petunia in bloom

The distance wont change but were you couldnt see through a shrub in full bloom in July, it might be possible to see through it when its only budding in early May. When you walked that walk, was it high summer or early spring?

iamwhoiam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The distance wont change but were you couldnt see through a shrub in full bloom in July, it might be possible to see through it when its only budding in early May. When you walked that walk, was it high summer or early spring?

Fine let the foliage be bare ., let the trees be cut down , let the shrubs be only sticks , you still cannot see in that door to the sleeping children . You cannot see the steps , you cannot see a small child wander out , you cannot see a ,man crawl in . You cannot see , its too far , its not a garden , its a public road even if a tree or shrub or bush never grew again on it .

iamwhoiam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The distance wont change but were you couldnt see through a shrub in full bloom in July, it might be possible to see through it when its only budding in early May. When you walked that walk, was it high summer or early spring?

Your question was
Did you actually walk the distance at the start of May before the foliage was in full bloom?
I answered your question , now we get a differnt one .,

DexyDrain

mrsbyrne wrote: »

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.

There was no reconstruction because they refused to take part. That is significant. The initial searches were quite superficial and by everyone's account finished at 4.30am, after which the group had free, unobserved movement until around 9am.

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.

The actual findings were that the dogs indicated on several occasions associated only with the McCanns, and even the car keys when placed under sand boxes. No alerts were made on any other occasion. No one disputes this.

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.

Funny they would mention peer review, haven't we discussed an excellent, well designed study of the reliability of these dogs, carried out since these searches and statements?

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.

Care to supply the evidence of heartfelt, desperate pleas to the captors, or heart wrenching reaching out to their missing daughter without having to be scripted or prompted. These are normal range reactions. Relentlessly pushing the reward to appeal to everyone's worst nature for your benefit?

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.

Your comrade needs to get informed about past trials, this stuff is par for the course in criminal investigations. Ian Huntley?

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.

These are uniformed spoofery. Larry Murphy had a great trade, well respected by those who worked with him, a devoted wife who stood by him until it was unrefuteable what he did. Rarely do the police have a list of odd behaving people who are the best suspects, more commonly, people are totally shocked at the kind of person who was in their midst totally unsuspected.

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.

Come on now, we're not that easily impressed, most successful, audacious crime in living memory???? Seriously??? Famous, perhaps, particularly complicated and beyond the bounds of reason and physics? Not at all. Not successful enough to leave two police forces unconvinced of their complicity. Not successful enough to remove all forensic traces or provide logical interpretations for such things as heavy, noisy shutters being opened for no apparent reason. IF this turns out to be staged, it wasn't a particularly impressive effort.

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.

Don't agree you have to be a psychopath to respond to a situation that could destroy your family with deceit and bold actions.

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.

Until someone or their dog trips over something on a beach or dusty laneway somewhere, which is how most such crimes end up being successfully concluded. See Scott Peterson.

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.

For someone who dislikes speculation, they really are beginning to warm to it.

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.

Scott Peterson, My Lai, Casey Anthony, lots of cases can be compared with aspects of this case, there are no shortage of examples.

mrsbyrne

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Your question was
Did you actually walk the distance at the start of May before the foliage was in full bloom?
I answered your question , now we get a differnt one .,

No, you didnt. But I'm a big girl. I can let you have it

iamwhoiam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

No, you didnt. But I'm a big girl. I can let you have it

OH Yes I did , you asked did I walk the distance and I told you that no bush will change the distance . And your grinning attitude wont rattle me .I simply nod and smile at people who use childish retorts . I wont be answering your posts , not because I cant but I like it here and I dont want to be arguing .

So I repeat
Fine let the foliage be bare ., let the trees be cut down , let the shrubs be only sticks , you still cannot see in that door to the sleeping children . You cannot see the steps , you cannot see a small child wander out , you cannot see a ,man crawl in . You cannot see , its too far , its not a garden , its a public road even if a tree or shrub or bush never grew again on it .

maebee

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Is this a reply to my post? I'm genuinely disappointed maebee. All my other posts were parsed so well by you, answered point for point. Never mind, its quite an old post now. Its been posted all over the place and not once has any one ever tried to address it, so no change there then. Its hard to argue with the truth.

Eh, I took 2 minutes out of a busy Sunday morning/afternoon to do the courtesy of replying to you. I'm taking another 2 minutes now to tell you that I've answered, as best I could, all your questions, many many times through this thread. I'm getting on my own nerves at this stage from repeating myself.

K-9

Does it really matter if they could see it or not? They obviously wouldn't be watching the apartment all the time anyway and as it turned out, they didn't. Its minutiae.

NTMK

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The distance wont change but were you couldnt see through a shrub in full bloom in July, it might be possible to see through it when its only budding in early May. When you walked that walk, was it high summer or early spring?

Ive been to portimao near pria in mid may the place in in full bloom do to the much warmer weather and a lot of rain i dont know where this idea of july comes from because at the later stages especially after a dry summer the plant life starts to die off.

maebee

iamwhoiam;72856110
Fine let the foliage be bare ., let the trees be cut down , let the shrubs be only sticks , you still cannot see in that door to the sleeping children . You cannot see the steps , you cannot see a small child wander out , you cannot see a ,man crawl in . You cannot see , its too far , its not a garden , its a public road even if a tree or shrub or bush never grew again on it .

And the kids could wake up and cry, for an hour and a quarter, and ask you the following day "Where were you when we cried?" and you go and do the same thing the next night. Unbelievable. The McCanns are not fit to be called parents.

DexyDrain

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The distance wont change but were you couldnt see through a shrub in full bloom in July, it might be possible to see through it when its only budding in early May. When you walked that walk, was it high summer or early spring?

But when they drew up a plan of where everyone was sitting, didn't they mark the McCanns as sitting facing away from the apartment. Given they all say Kate and Gerry arrived first and could sit where they wanted, it really does make it a moot point what was growing between the backs of their heads and the apartment, maybe all their friends were checking for them from the other side if the table as well as strolling up there for them too?


If they left the sliding door open, it is completely inexplicable that they would sit facing the other way. Did they know the sliding door was locked all along?

iamwhoiam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The distance wont change but were you couldnt see through a shrub in full bloom in July, it might be possible to see through it when its only budding in early May. When you walked that walk, was it high summer or early spring?

Neither.So your point is? You think they could see better if the shrubs in May were bare ? No they couldnt because a) the shrubs in the Algarve are not bare in May and b)the whitewashed wall behind the shrubs stays the same height all year round and c) it wouldnt matter because they wernt using a periscope .

deco nate

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Neither.So your point is? You think they could see better if the shrubs in May were bare ? No they couldnt because a) the shrubs in the Algarve are not bare in May and b) it wouldnt matter because they wernt using a periscope .

teliscope,just before anyone atacks you,periscope is rhe one you get on a submarine

K-9

Yeah but if it was visible or not, nobody was bothering to check anyway. It's irrelevant.

Nobody said "well, we looked over at the apartment to see". If it was 2 miles away with binoculars or 50 yards away, pointless if nobody is checking.

deco nate

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah but if it was visible or not, nobody was bothering to check anyway. It's irrelevant.

Nobody said "well, we looked over at the apartment to see". If it was 2 miles away with binoculars or 50 yards away, pointless if nobody is checking.

its is to those that nit pick,im sure you know the score

iamwhoiam

deco nate wrote: »

teliscope,just before anyone atacks you,periscope is rhe one you get on a submarine

Yep, I meant periscope as you would need one to look up and over the wall !

deco nate

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yep, I meant periscope as you would need one to look up and over the wall !

my bad sorry.but i do know what you mean.

iamwhoiam

deco nate wrote: »

my bad sorry.but i do know what you mean.

Thats ok , i was quite chuffed I knew what one did .

dark crystal

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

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.

Wow, where to start with such an offensive post..?

Firstly, please do not talk to me as if I am stupid. I am not and it is highly insulting.

Secondly, yes, I do have children (though what that has to do with the law as it stands in relation to proof of guilt or innocence, I don't know) and they are brought up very well, with very good values. They also know right from wrong just as I do and seem to be doing pretty well so far, thanks for the concern.

I was referring to guilt and innocence IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. The McCanns have never been tried for a crime, therefore, they are innocent in the eyes of the law. In fact, they have never even been charged for any crime. Read my post back and you will see that is what I was talking about.

I have no more idea as to whether they are guilty or innocent of the crime than you, the PJ or the man in the moon have. My point was that they have never been proven guilty, therefore any theory on either side is pure conjecture. Nobody can state for sure whether they are guilty or innocent, without there being any conclusive proof either way.

I have never stated for a fact that they are innocent of the crime - I have always said I am much more inclined to believe they are innocent rather than guilty, based on my understanding of the case. It is a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.

Now, respectfully, I am going to leave it there, because I really don't wish to engage in personal insults and I'd kindly ask you not to make assumptions about my parenting skills in the future.

AudreyHepburn

Another interesting quote from Kate's book on how Gerry copes with everything. It's from Chapter 23, Page 531/532 Adapting to our new life;

" Gerry has tried, quite sucessfully, to compartmentalize his life, his thoughts and his focus.......has been able to switch off from time to time"

I realise there still some who refuse to think he is anything but a cold calculating sociopath but for me this confirms what I always thought about him.

It's not that he doesn't feel pain, grief and loss, quite to the contrary. But he is able to put it aside when he needs to, such as when focusing on the campaign or when he is with Sean and Amelie. Not always sucessfully though.

A few lines down Kate describes him watching Dr.Who with the twins and being in tears because it was Madeleine's favourite episode.

iamwhoiam

I think men is general can shut off better , I know my own man can watch teli and forget the worries and woes for awhile .I cant they never leave and I wish I could sometimes . It must ease the mind and let it rest but I think women find it less easy .Not sure that even my man could shut off that kind of trauma though , I doubt it somhow

Silver Moon

do three year olds really watch Dr Who?

iamwhoiam

Silver Moon wrote: »

do three year olds really watch Dr Who?

Not a fan of Dr Who but I have to say it was my first thought? Is it actually a programme for 3 year olds ?

ISDW

Silver Moon wrote: »

do three year olds really watch Dr Who?

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Not a fan of Dr Who but I have to say it was my first thought? Is it actually a programme for 3 year olds ?

Oh come on now, this is just ridiculous. Yes 3 year olds watch Dr Who, it is a programme made for the whole family, that is the point of it, families sit down together and watch it. I have sat and watched it with a 5 year old, 14 year old and my parents, both in their 70s.

Proper evidence is one thing, but questioning whether a man sits down to watch a TV programme that is put on at peak family viewing time with his children is just nonsensical.

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Not a fan of Dr Who but I have to say it was my first thought? Is it actually a programme for 3 year olds ?

I did wonder about that but I hardly think they'd let her watch if it weren't appropriate.

maebee

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I think men is general can shut off better , I know my own man can watch teli and forget the worries and woes for awhile .I cant they never leave and I wish I could sometimes . It must ease the mind and let it rest but I think women find it less easy .Not sure that even my man could shut off that kind of trauma though , I doubt it somhow

I agree iam. Son no.2 is away from home, heart-broken from a serious relationship break-up. I haven't slept properly in a month but my OH who is equally worried about said son, can shut it off come bedtime. Oh, to be a man, sometimes

iamwhoiam

maebee wrote: »

I agree iam. Son no.2 is away from home, heart-broken from a serious relationship break-up. I haven't slept properly in a month but my OH who is equally worried about said son, can shut it off come bedtime. Oh, to be a man, sometimes

Oh bless poor son , I have been there and just let him know you will always be there . Yes, and my OH slept through it then too .!

iamwhoiam

ISDW wrote: »

Oh come on now, this is just ridiculous. Yes 3 year olds watch Dr Who, it is a programme made for the whole family, that is the point of it, families sit down together and watch it. I have sat and watched it with a 5 year old, 14 year old and my parents, both in their 70s.

Proper evidence is one thing, but questioning whether a man sits down to watch a TV programme that is put on at peak family viewing time with his children is just nonsensical.

Who questioned if a man sits down and watches or not ? The question was would a three year old be interested ? This is a disscussion thread not a fan club ,It was a genuine question on my part . My own watched cute bunnies when they were three ,

DexyDrain

ISDW wrote: »

Oh come on now, this is just ridiculous. Yes 3 year olds watch Dr Who, it is a programme made for the whole family, that is the point of it, families sit down together and watch it. I have sat and watched it with a 5 year old, 14 year old and my parents, both in their 70s.

Proper evidence is one thing, but questioning whether a man sits down to watch a TV programme that is put on at peak family viewing time with his children is just nonsensical.

No, I think it is an interesting comment to make. Watch the Cinema trailer for the 2007 series of Dr. Who here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/video/index.shtml

Do you really imagine a three year old will watch that? Would a parent let their three year old child watch that? Wonder if this was her favourite episode:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/doctorwho/ram/308_preview?size=16x9&bgc=CC0000&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1

I have a three year old, who has lots of three year old friends. They have matured past Peppa Pig to Fireman Sam, Little Bear, Strawberry Shortcake. If the McCann's sat down to watch Dr. Who with their three year old, and she had a favourite episode, I will eat my cat.