Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

dark crystal

Are people really trying to imply that the McCanns are now lying about one of Madeleine's favourite programmes??

Ah c'mon now....please tell me why on earth they would have any reason to lie about something so utterly trivial and insignificant!

DexyDrain

Emotional manipulation, just not thought through very well? I think they have a pattern of completely misjudging the capacity of other people to analyse rather than blindly sympathise.

K-9

Dr. Who is a BBC institution so yes!

ISDW

iamwhoiam wrote: »

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 ,

I don't understand what you mean by the fan club comment.

DexyDrain wrote: »

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.

This is a British family, Dr Who is prime time family entertainment in Britain. For some reason it hasn't crossed the Irish sea as such a phenomenon. Yes I would let a 3 year old watch Dr Who, as do millions of people. I had a foster child move in with me at 5, who had watched all the of the Dr Who's with David Tenant up till that point, he had them on DVD back at his parent's house, so that would have put him at 3 when he was watching them. Yes, he did have a favourite episode, from before he moved in with me, when it was on TV again, we sky plussed it and he would watch it over and over again.

I really think its time this thread was locked if this is the way the discussion is going.

iamwhoiam

Why would we not be allowed to question the decision to watch Dr Who with a small child ? Why would that need a lock ?? Its a valid disscussion .I never questioned the actual watching , I questioned the right or wrong .I wouldnt have allowed mine watch it , but then again they would have been to scared .Obviousely not all little kids would by the sound of it

DexyDrain

Well that is the most surprising thing I have seen on this thread :pac: You really wouldn't mind a three year old watching that, all those freaky scarecrows, heads getting fried etc. etc.? It's rated 12. Have to say I am genuinely very surprised anyone would let a three year old watch it, and that they would enjoy it.

dark crystal

DexyDrain wrote: »

Emotional manipulation, just not thought through very well? I think they have a pattern of completely misjudging the capacity of other people to analyse rather than blindly sympathise.

I reckon you're completely overthinking things there, Dexy...

Whe My little girl was 3, she loved the film Return To Oz (which has rather a dark tone), so there's not really a right or a wrong type of family film or programme for children - each child likes different things.

Am I correct in thinking that Dr. Who was originally a kids programme in it's earlier inception? Can't say I was ever a fan myself, but it does seem to be aimed at the family demographic alright, given the time it's aired.

maebee

I know that some posters here are not very fond of Snr. Amaral but in this interview last month, he asks a vey pertinent question, which imo, needs an answer.

“To ask for the process to be reopened, all it would take is a letter to the Prosecutor, as it has already happened in so many other cases. It costs them nothing, just the stamp on the letter.”

EXCLUSIVE: Gonçalo Amaral issues plea for Kate McCann to “tell the truth” mccannfiles.com

By Nigel Moore

FORMER Portuguese police co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral has issued a plea for Kate McCann to “tell the truth” and spoken of his delight at having his freedom of speech returned.

Speaking exclusively to mccannfiles.com on the eve of the publication of Mrs McCanns’ book about missing daughter Madeleine, Mr Amaral said he was surprised at Kate’s claim that she was writing her book “to give an account of the truth.”

“It is strange to hear the word ‘truth’ from the mouth of someone who didn’t cooperate with the police when the investigation was open,” he said.

“And it was not any investigation; it was about finding what caused the mysterious disappearance of her daughter, and the enormous effort to recover her.”

Mr Amaral believes the McCanns have “the right to be able to write what they like about the case” and supports the fact that Kate “is using her freedom of speech”. Something recently denied him.

“A book that is written by someone who was a suspect may become of use as a document, maybe even a piece of documental evidence. Let us wait,” he added.

Mr Amaral, whose bestselling book The Truth of the Lie was the subject of costly legal action by the McCanns, said he “felt like a free man” when the injunction on his book was overturned by the Appeals Court in October last year. “The McCanns also felt free because they decided to write a book,” he observed.

The McCanns, who failed in their recent appeal to Portugal’s Supreme Court to reimpose the ban, must now return all seized copies of the book, currently placed with their lawyer, Isabel Duarte, or risk incurring a criminal charge of disobedience.

“Legality has been re-established,” said Goncalo Amaral. “The McCanns have just lost one more judicial action that was paid for with money from a fund that they say is for recovering their daughter.

“Both her and her husband were, and still are, more concerned with defending their image than in finding out what caused the child’s mysterious disappearance.”

An English language version of Goncalo Amaral’s book is yet to be released but he said: “After the McCanns’ book is published, there is no reason whatsoever for The Truth of the Lie not to be published in the UK. The British people are entitled to know all of the facts.”

Mr Amaral believes that the process will be reopened and “the material truth will be known” and is dismissive of the McCanns’ petition for a review of the case.

“That is one of the misunderstandings that are created by the McCanns,” he said, “they do not want the case to be reviewed, they merely want a review of the information that has been added after the shelving (sightings of the child).

“If they wanted the case to be reviewed, they would ask for the crime process and the investigation to be reopened, and they would supply all of the reports from the various private detectives that they have hired.

“To ask for the process to be reopened, all it would take is a letter to the Prosecutor, as it has already happened in so many other cases. It costs them nothing, just the stamp on the letter.”

If the process were reopened, Mr Amaral believes there are “several” diligences which could be carried out to help discover the truth.

“There will always be diligences that will result from reviewing the investigation and the reports from the McCanns’ private detectives. Those diligences will have to take the conclusions that the Police had reached in September of 2007 into account.

“That is the starting point, but in the end it could happen that those conclusions are not confirmed. What is necessary is to complete an investigation that was suddenly interrupted due to the will of the parents of a child that has disappeared mysteriously.”

Mr Amaral has no doubts about which action would have to be undertaken immediately to help unearth the truth of what happened to Madeleine.

“The first diligence, after the review, will have to be the reconstruction of that night of the 3rd of May, 2007.”

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Why would we not be allowed to question the decision to watch Dr Who with a small child ? Why would that need a lock ?? Its a valid disscussion .I never questioned the actual watching , I questioned the right or wrong .I wouldnt have allowed mine watch it , but then again they would have been to scared .Obviousely not all little kids would by the sound of it

I didn't mention Dr. Who in the context of the rightness or wrongness of it. I mentioned it as an example of how Gerry, although in general good a compartmentalizing, is not always able to keep his pain hidden.

I didn't for it to be used as yet another way critize the McCanns.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I didn't mention Dr. Who in the context of the rightness or wrongness of it. I mentioned it as an example of how Gerry, although in general good a compartmentalizing, is not always able to keep his pain hidden.

I didn't for it to be used as yet another way critize the McCanns.

Doesnt mean that people will not find it a little strange though .Mind you I find alot of decisions strange regarding kids TV and what they watch nowadays .I think mine were lucky that kids shows were on during the day and more adult at night and they were not really challenged that way to be honest .It was kids programmes and then game shows etc at tea time .
I see little kids waching East enders and find it odd but to each his own I guess . Mine are older and were raised on Skippy and Rainbow and He man and such like later on .Thank goodness for Playschool and Bosco and Sesame street

Kess73

Dr. Who



Even as a person who has doubts over a lot of things in this case, I am not going to try and pick holes in the McCanns because they say their child used to like Dr Who.

Maybe Kate is making it up and is using it as an emotional bridge to readers, or maybe the kid liked the theme music or the funny looking characters.

As someone who did a lot of growing up in the UK, specifically Liverpool, I can safely say that for millions and millions of people watching Dr Who is something that is a big deal. I cannot stand the show but grew uip knowing entire families who sat down together to watch it and kids I grew up with now sit down with their own kids to watch it.

Maybe Gerry is one who watched it himself as a kid and then started to have his own kids watch it. Hell if the little girl had a favourite episode maybe that's because there was an episode with lots of music or colourful aliens that made her laugh.

I'll question it when things don't add up in the case or when the McCanns contradict themselves, or if the police do likewise.

But trying to decide if Kate mentioning Dr Who has some bearing on the case? Nah, that is a stretch too far for me. She could come out in the morning and say that the little girl used to love watching any primetime show she cares to mention, and I would pay little heed to it in terms of it having any kind of bearing on what happened four years ago.

Mistyeyes321

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

Thank-You Audrey, I think men in general are far better at dealing with emotion's that Women find themselves Blubbering about, Me included...It doesn't mean because we don't see it it isn't there they just seem to be able to switch that emotion off & deal withit at a later time..

Mistyeyes321

maebee wrote: »

I know that some posters here are not very fond of Snr. Amaral but in this interview last month, he asks a vey pertinent question, which imo, needs an answer.

So let me get this right! The case can & will be reopened all it need's is a Letter from the Mcs?!

maebee

Just in case this has been lost in the Dr. Who discussion, can anybody explain why the McCanns have not requested a re-opening of the case, which they could have done, at any time?

“To ask for the process to be reopened, all it would take is a letter to the Prosecutor, as it has already happened in so many other cases. It costs them nothing, just the stamp on the letter.”

Note: a Re-view is totally different to a re-opening.

AudreyHepburn

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Thank-You Audrey, I think men in general are far better at dealing with emotion's that Women find themselves Blubbering about, Me included...It doesn't mean because we don't see it it isn't there they just seem to be able to switch that emotion off & deal withit at a later time..

You're very welcome!

I agree that for the most part men certainly have it easier when it comes to dealin with emotion, although I have no doubt there are times when a man just can't hold his emotions back, such as when Gerry was watching Madeleine's favourite program.

I don't really know why that is the case however.

maebee

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

So let me get this right! The case can & will be reopened all it needs is a Letter from the Mcs?!

Yes Misty, which they have never done. Or it can be re-opened by the PJ should new evidence come to light. You would imagine that the McCanns would be begging the PJ for a re-opening but they never have. Very strange.

Mistyeyes321

maebee wrote: »

Yes Misty, which they have never done. Or it can be re-opened by the PJ should new evidence come to light. You would imagine that the McCanns would be begging the PJ for a re-opening but they never have. Very strange.

Absolutly agree don't understand why they wouldn't just write that letter it does seem strange. I was always under the impression this case was Shelved till new evidence was available??! & The Mcs had no say in this at all..

DexyDrain

I agree with you Kess73, it has no bearing on the case itself. My assumption about the audience for the programme was obviously pretty wrong, even if it had been right it would have no value whatsoever in determining what happened to Madeleine.

maebee

“The first diligence, after the review, will have to be the reconstruction of that night of the 3rd of May, 2007.”

For the life of me, I just cannot understand why they refused to do this re-construction.

DexyDrain

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You're very welcome!

I agree that for the most part men certainly have it easier when it comes to dealin with emotion, although I have no doubt there are times when a man just can't hold his emotions back, such as when Gerry was watching Madeleine's favourite program.

I don't really know why that is the case however.

Men score higher on average on 'systemising' tests, women score higher on average on 'empathising' tests. I think it is a very valid observation that men can, when required, redirect their thoughts and motivations towards goals and tasks easier than women.

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

Yes Misty, which they have never done. Or it can be re-opened by the PJ should new evidence come to light. You would imagine that the McCanns would be begging the PJ for a re-opening but they never have. Very strange.

But the PJ suspect the McCanns - they have no other leads! Why would the McCanns beg them to re-open a case where they are the main suspects??

Unless either the PJ or the McCanns themselves discover any new witnesses or evidence in the case, I don't see why the McCanns would trust the PJ to reinvestigate a cold case, without any new evidence at all to go on.

Silver Moon

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Absolutly agree don't understand why they wouldn't just write that letter it does seem strange. I was always under the impression this case was Shelved till new evidence was available??! & The Mcs had no say in this at all..

the McCanns have always had the power to have the investigation re-opened. They don't want it re-opened because they know which direction it will go in - therefore they only want a review.

Mountainsandh

Maebee I think if they re-opened it would curtail their private investigators rights to operate, and therefore bring them back to square one, as far as they are concerned, where the PJ were doing a bad job, and not enough. They would be relinquishing the opportunity to be able to have their own team looking into things, and have to trust a police force that in their view has failed them so far.
And also, if they still are convinced (as I am) that the PJ are corrupt, then it wouldn't help one bit to be back in their crutches (or clutches ? I'm here 15 years and still can't remember that one right :o:o). In their grip :P

Silver Moon

I contend that Dr Who is not natural viewing for most three year olds

I also don't think that most three year olds are that familiar with Harry Potter

"Madeleine has the first three Harry Potter books and first three DVDs. Like most other children the world over, she loves the stories."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468931/Harry-Potter-used-worldwide-appeal-help-missing-Madeleine.html#ixzz1PrBm9J5q

I think the McCanns were just suggesting stuff like that because they thought would help get others on their side - mentioning stuff like Dr Who and Harry Potter makes them sound more normal. I'm not actually sure that they really knew Madeleine that well.

maebee

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Maebee I think if they re-opened it would curtail their private investigators rights to operate, and therefore bring them back to square one, as far as they are concerned, where the PJ were doing a bad job, and not enough. They would be relinquishing the opportunity to be able to have their own team looking into things, and have to trust a police force that in their view has failed them so far.
And also, if they still are convinced (as I am) that the PJ are corrupt, then it wouldn't help one bit to be back in their crutches (or clutches ? I'm here 15 years and still can't remember that one right :o:o). In their grip :P

Hi Mountain,

I'm heading to my leaba now but will post on the McCanns's private (inept and dodgy) investigators tomorrow.

Mountainsandh

Looking forward to it Goodnight!

dark crystal

Silver Moon wrote: »

I contend that Dr Who is not natural viewing for most three year olds

I also don't think that most three year olds are that familiar with Harry Potter

"Madeleine has the first three Harry Potter books and first three DVDs. Like most other children the world over, she loves the stories."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468931/Harry-Potter-used-worldwide-appeal-help-missing-Madeleine.html#ixzz1PrBm9J5q

I think the McCanns were just suggesting stuff like that because they thought would help get others on their side - mentioning stuff like Dr Who and Harry Potter makes them sound more normal. I'm not actually sure that they really knew Madeleine that well.

Ah come on....

I think that's pretty unfair, even from someone who can't stand the McCanns.

Those are some pretty big assumptions you are making on such trivial matters.

Mountainsandh

Silver Moon wrote: »

I contend that Dr Who is not natural viewing for most three year olds

I also don't think that most three year olds are that familiar with Harry Potter

"Madeleine has the first three Harry Potter books and first three DVDs. Like most other children the world over, she loves the stories."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468931/Harry-Potter-used-worldwide-appeal-help-missing-Madeleine.html#ixzz1PrBm9J5q

I think the McCanns were just suggesting stuff like that because they thought would help get others on their side - mentioning stuff like Dr Who and Harry Potter makes them sound more normal. I'm not actually sure that they really knew Madeleine that well.

One of my kids is 3 yo. He's not into scary stuff but I know kids younger than him and his age who are. These kids would love watching dinosaurs devouring people and monsters of all kinds. My little fella is more analytical and would love to analyse all the magical things in Harry Potter if it wasn't for the scary bits, I know that for a fact. In fact he's just watched the Spiderman movie recently and is hooked, despite the scariness. He'd be well able to talk about the stories and characters of movies/series he does watch too, so I don't see the Dr Who and Harry Potter as odd.

Bear in mind too, that all kids love to have that special moment with Mum or Dad (even normally loved kids, before anyone jumps at that !) when the grown up's arms are lovingly wrapped around them and they share something, in this case, watching a tv program, preferably with no-one else involved. She might have loved "the moment" of it, more so than the content.

Mistyeyes321

maebee wrote: »

Hi Mountain,

I'm heading to my leaba now but will post on the McCanns's private (inept and dodgy) investigators tomorrow.

Ok me again go on then what is a Leaba? been waiting for someone else to ask:pac:

TheZohanS

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Ok me again go on then what is a Leaba? been waiting for someone else to ask:pac:

Irish word for bed!