Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Mistyeyes321

dark crystal wrote: »

How did it directly contradict the Wiki link? It said basically the same thing, except for the fact the McCanns spokesman gave reasons as to why they refused to take part in such a reconstruction.

I didn't get the brick wall comment was all.

Anyway, looks like I'm on my own trying to defend the McCanns here again, so I'll take my leave and let ye all get on and read all the 'proper' links.

DC I have been hovering now this lastweek & becoming more inclined to think maybe the Mcs arn't all at fault like I first thought! I really have been changing my mind because I have been reading everything posted by Yourself & Audrey & Mrs Bynes & Mountainsandh! I can't however see any Logical reason why they wouldn't do this Re construction they have absolutly nothing to lose & maybe something Positive to gain.! Your not alone seriously you have been changing my mind one of the whole point's of having this thread & seeing all point's of view it has made me stop & think! Truth Gospel.!

dark crystal

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

DC I have been hovering now this lastweek & becoming more inclined to think maybe the Mcs arn't all at fault like I first thought! I really have been changing my mind because I have been reading everything posted by Yourself & Audrey & Mrs Bynes & Mountainsandh! I can't however see any Logical reason why they wouldn't do this Re construction they have absolutly nothing to lose & maybe something Positive to gain.! Your not alone seriously you have been changing my mind one of the whole point's of having this thread & seeing all point's of view it has made me stop & think! Truth Gospel.!

That's great to hear Mistyeyes, honestly and thank you. That's a refreshing viewpoint and I welcome it!

However, it is getting really rather frustrating trying to find a place in a debate that has become very one sided (not to mention quite heated!) over the course of the thread.

Perhaps AH isn't really the place for such a subject, as there does seem to be a general consensus here that there may be a conspiracy on the part of the McCanns and their friends to cover up a very serious crime. That's why I think it might be more suited to CT myself.

At least there, it could be discussed at length, without clogging up AH so much.

Mountainsandh

Hold your horses everyone !

You see, we're all looking at this from today's point of view, but I can pretty well remember at the time, that the reason that was widely alluded to as to why they would not do the reconstruction ... was simply that they were worried that the PJ would then "keep" them in Portugal.

They had just managed to get home, big ordeal really to take that step, and also there was some doubt at the time as to whether they would be "let" go home.
So if I remember right, when the talk of reconstruction came on, this was a tense time, when, in my forum anyway, every one thought that the PJ were just trying to find a way to bring them back.
I don't think there's any official writing on this mind you, but I'm sure it is a point that would probably have influenced them if they had any doubt at all.

Remember, "our side" does NOT trust the PJ and their intentions. K McC makes it pretty clear in her book that their take on the PJ is that the minute they were made arguidos, the PJ quit looking for Madeleine, and concentrated solely on trying to pin it down to the parents. That was the new focus of the PJ, not following up on sightings, not possibly conducting more door to door enquiries (which apparently had been very much lacking), and countless other things they could have gone over, but finding evidence to incriminate the McCanns.
If you were convinced someone was trying to incriminate you, instead of looking for your little girl, would you give them more opportunity to waste time ?
The McCanns had dealings with the PJ, and most of us (I would guess) haven't. They are the ones who talked with the PJ, there are probably countless off record conversations that would give a different side to the story.

Take the deal that K McC was offered on being made an arguida. Yeah yeah yeah I know, rubbish.
Fair enough, if you don't believe one word coming from her, you won't believe that bit.
If like me you do, then it makes sense, not to do the reconstruction.

Mountainsandh

dark crystal wrote: »

At least there, it could be discussed at length, without clogging up AH so much.

Yes I think it should be in CT too. I don't see myself as a CTist (:p), but I think it's too serious for AH, and far fetched for people who don't follow the case.

Mountainsandh

Dark Crystal you're not alone, sometimes I do want to argue, sometimes I'm just not bothered. When the sources used by the opposite side are from anti-MCC sites especially, it's too toilesome to do the research to counter argue.

And there isn't much of a point really anyway isn't there ? Hopefully something some day will emerge.

Like the McC say, there is bound to be someone in PdL or surroundings who knows something of value to the investigation, all it would take is for that person to come forward to possibly give a new, more valid, lead.

edit : sorry about the multiple posts, should really have done an "all-in-one".

DexyDrain

It probably would do well in Conspiracy Theories, two police forces, one world renowned dog trainer and handler, two dogs, one highly distinguished expert on victim recovery, a willing spare corpse or two all under the control and influence of a regional detective in the PJ from that hub of power and espionage, the Coastal tourism district of the Algarve. :rolleyes:

TheZohanS

geetar wrote: »

can the mods move this thread to the conspiracy theories forum so it can die in peace instead of taking up all of AH because of repptitive posting by what seems to be around only 5 different people....

If you don't like the thread don't post in it. Simples.

TheZohanS

DexyDrain wrote: »

It probably would do well in Conspiracy Theories, two police forces, one world renowned dog trainer and handler, two dogs, one highly distinguished expert on victim recovery, a willing spare corpse or two all under the control and influence of a regional detective in the PJ from that hub of power and espionage, the Coastal tourism district of the Algarve. :rolleyes:

Yup, the conspiracy theory here is that the McCanns are complete innocents in all of this. I'd say if there was a poll added asking if posters think that the McCanns are completely innocent there'd be a landslide vote; against them. No matter what is said, no matter how often it is shown that the tapas group and the McCanns are shown to have lied, have conflicting stories, good aul Team McCann will keep on truckin'. Take a step back and look at it, it's plain to see that this whole case stinks.

dark crystal

Mountainsandh wrote: »

And there isn't much of a point really anyway isn't there ? Hopefully something some day will emerge.

This is it - going round in circles, talking about numerous different theoretical hypothesis as to how the McCanns may have killed and disposed of their daughter and how they are boldly getting away with it when these people have never even been charged with a crime and could well be innocent!

There seems little point in arguing with these beliefs any more as people will believe what they like (and are perfectly entitled to do so) and I doubt anything will change their minds on this matter. Getting kinda tired of the sarcastic digs aimed at anyone who might dare to believe the McCanns as well.

Like you and everyone else, I hope this case is resolved in time and the culprit/s are brought to justice. But we do seem to be knee deep into conspiracy theory territory on the thread at the moment, whatever way you look at it.

Mountainsandh

DexyDrain wrote: »

It probably would do well in Conspiracy Theories, two police forces, one world renowned dog trainer and handler, two dogs, one highly distinguished expert on victim recovery, a willing spare corpse or two all under the control and influence of a regional detective in the PJ from that hub of power and espionage, the Coastal tourism district of the Algarve. :rolleyes:

You'd be surprised ...
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/03/madeleine-and-dutroux-links-to-ghent.html

TheZohan, I don't live my life and make up my mind by "how many people think this".

Simply put, they're all wrong, and I'm sooo right.

Jesting aside, it is really a case of how much of the media BS you swallow, and how, although you may think you are simply being objective and critical, you are just buying into what they are telling you.

Looking at the thread and all the pages of links to this, and that, and more... the only thing that is clear to see is that people think they know more about it than they do (I'm guilty of that too btw).
We really don't know F all of what was said between the McCs and the PJ, and what the PJ did or did not do, or the McCs did or did not do. We know some bits and pieces we have been fed*, by sources whose reliability is 100% relative to who you trust.

edit : * and I include the PJ files in that of course

K-9

Maybe the McCanns and their home alone children defenders will stop defending the indefensible at some stage and we can all debate the facts and supposed scenarios without throwing childish labels about.

Does no good,

AskMyChocolate

Btw, I'm a single man with two nieces, and if one of my brother's girls went missing, I can assure you that if my brother wanted a reconstuction done; his friends would be there.

And it wouldn't require any pressure, regardless of work commitments.

AskMyChocolate

Does nobody realise that there are reasons that the two police forces came to their conclusions?

Evidence of an abduction, or no evidence of an abduction is not a 50/50 thing.

They know their stuff. If there is no evidence of an abduction, it automatically leads them to their conclusions.

No glove marks, no disturbed fingerprints, no shoe-marks that shouldn't be there. No fibres. Nothing on the bed-sheets, no signs of distress, etc.

It is the lack of "evidence" that leads these professionals to be suspicious.

They do their job. And certainly in the case of the Leicestershire police, they would have been under pressure to come to the conclusion that it was a random nutter. But, they didn't.

And Eddie and Keela were bought off. Surely any impartial observer can see that.

AskMyChocolate

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

:eek: Did they?:eek:

Hands up anyone, who doesn't love Misty's integrity, innocence and just plain being intrigued by the whole situation ?

Love ya' misty.

You're like an icecream in Teddy's when Dun Laoghaire is losing it's clean beach status.

The world needs more people like you (with a flake).

Choco

Silver Moon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hold your horses everyone !

You see, we're all looking at this from today's point of view, but I can pretty well remember at the time, that the reason that was widely alluded to as to why they would not do the reconstruction ... was simply that they were worried that the PJ would then "keep" them in Portugal.

They had just managed to get home, big ordeal really to take that step, and also there was some doubt at the time as to whether they would be "let" go home.
So if I remember right, when the talk of reconstruction came on, this was a tense time, when, in my forum anyway, every one thought that the PJ were just trying to find a way to bring them back.
I don't think there's any official writing on this mind you, but I'm sure it is a point that would probably have influenced them if they had any doubt at all.

Remember, "our side" does NOT trust the PJ and their intentions. K McC makes it pretty clear in her book that their take on the PJ is that the minute they were made arguidos, the PJ quit looking for Madeleine, and concentrated solely on trying to pin it down to the parents. That was the new focus of the PJ, not following up on sightings, not possibly conducting more door to door enquiries (which apparently had been very much lacking), and countless other things they could have gone over, but finding evidence to incriminate the McCanns.
If you were convinced someone was trying to incriminate you, instead of looking for your little girl, would you give them more opportunity to waste time ?
The McCanns had dealings with the PJ, and most of us (I would guess) haven't. They are the ones who talked with the PJ, there are probably countless off record conversations that would give a different side to the story.

Take the deal that K McC was offered on being made an arguida. Yeah yeah yeah I know, rubbish.
Fair enough, if you don't believe one word coming from her, you won't believe that bit.
If like me you do, then it makes sense, not to do the reconstruction.

they had not 'just managed to get home' - the McCanns left in Spetember 2007 and the reconstruction was planned for May 2008.

and Kate Healy was NOT offered a 'deal'. You clearly do not understand how the law operates in Portugal. Deals do not happen in Portugal.

AskMyChocolate

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

Shocking with Friend's like this who need's Enemies?. What is wrong with these People?! A three year old Child is missing & I don't care what their Poxy excuse is they should have done this for this Child! It's the very Least they could have done! Forget about the PJ we're talking about this Child. It's nothing more than a Disgrace shame on them I hope they can sleep at night!

Just sobering up now,and with all my efforts to be clever, I think that hits the nail on the head. Good work Misty. You don't need to see any files for that to be right. Clear,concise , honest and to the point IMO.

No legalese defeats an argument like that.

Choco

Poxy excuse!

Cheers Misty, I'll be using that again when people try to get clever all over me.

It cuts through legalese like gobsihte! Which is my favourite word. It's like lemon to legalese!

I have a friend who really should be posting on this thread. His catchphase?

*strokes chin* "That's actually a very salient point. Of course, you do realise you're wrong."

Mountainsandh

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Okay, last post was a bit off (personal, and trying to be funny. FAIL).

But, does nobody realise that there are reasons that the two police forces came to their conclusions?

What conclusions ? you mean, the conclusion that there is no evidence to charge the parents, and the case should be closed... right ?

Evidence of an abduction, or no evidence of an abduction is not a 50/50 thing.

Great to have your expertise on this. :rolleyes:

No glove marks

,
what do you mean, do gloves leave marks ?

no disturbed fingerprints, no shoe-marks that shouldn't be there. No fibres. Nothing on the bed-sheets, no signs of distress, etc.
....It is the lack of "evidence" that leads these professionals to be suspicious.

They do their job. And certainly in the case of the Leicestershire police, they would have been under pressure to come to the conclusion that it was a random nutter. But, they didn't.

How much of what "they" think do you know ? How did you get to know it ? How much of Leicestershire police's "opinion" do we know ? Can I have a link to Leicestershire Police's conclusions please ?

And Eddie and Keela were bought off. Surely any impartial observer can see that.

That's a cheap and easy dig.

Just like I, for example, suspect corruption and possible planting of evidence by PJ in this case, you choose to ignore that Goncalo Amaral has been convicted of tampering with evidence previously, and accept his word as Gospel.

His conviction is not rumour, it's official. For falsifying reports/evidence.
Surely any impartial observer would take that into account.

Silver Moon

On July 7 2008 Mrs Justice Hogg gave judgement in the Family Division of the High Court regarding the attempt by Kate & Gerry McCann to gain access to all the Leicester Police documents regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The judgement was by agreement between the parties and was made in open court.

Dr Kate Healy in her book Madeleine has now provided an except from the official submission of Leicester Police to the court regarding the matter and outlining the reasons why the police would not agree to provide the documents. Signed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire it runs: “While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

endabob1

I gave up posting in this thread ages ago because it was going around in circles with the same dogged arguments on both sides. I've read quite a bit on the whole case and there are so many irregularities about the McCanns story and their friends stories that it's hard to know where to begin dissecting them all. You would allow for some differences but to me the "evidence" of Tanner which the McCanns were taking as gospel has such huge gaping holes in it that as a juror you would discount it completely.

I went from feeling sympathy for them when the story broke, to being appalled at the negligence in their actions, to believing they knew more than they were saying to eventually coming to the conclusion that they or one of their friends were responsible.

That said would I convict them in a court of law, not a chance, there's nowhere near enough evidence to convict, just as there isn't evidence of abduction.

Seachmall

Silver Moon wrote: »

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

In fairness there is no clear evidence that eliminates anyone in that resort from involvement in her disappearance. It's extremely difficult to prove somebody didn't commit a crime which is why we assume innocence until guilt is proven.

AskMyChocolate

maebee wrote: »

Hi iam. We have to hope that the reasons will be known sometime. Hopefully SY will uncover the truth. In 2007 David Payne said in an interview with a British journalist "We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours"
Very strange.

Hi Maebee. Given the fact, that we've both been interested in this thread from the start, this is one of the things that I would like closed off. I really hope that there will be no political influence one way or the other.

Scotland Yard (given their head) are considered as one of the best investigative police services in the western world. They are ranked up there with Interpol and the FBI.

I hope they will be allowed investigate what they want to investigate.

As you know, I have always been on the fence. I find people who dismiss the dogs' evidence as circumstancial, a bit odd.

However, my real interest, as you know has been in time-lines. I still believe, that if G McCann can be placed at the Tapas bar at 10.00 P.M.
then he can't have been the man that the Smith family saw.


I don't think for one second that there is either a "McCann Hater:rolleyes:" or a McCann apologist:rolleyes: who thinks that the Smith family are attention seekers.

It could simply have been another man taking his tired daughter home from the beach.

But why has TeamMcCann not latched onto this, in my eyes, sound circumstancial evidence? It lends a huge amount of credence to their case.

None of it makes sense.

Choco

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe the McCanns and their home alone children defenders will stop defending the indefensible at some stage and we can all debate the facts and supposed scenarios without throwing childish labels about.

Does no good,

I think it has been several pages since there was any discussion at all about the wrongs of the McCanns leaving their children alone. That aspect of the debate is not active. IMO, they, or a baby sitter, should have been close enough to hear their children if the woke from their sleep. So they were irresponsible, but personally I don’t agree with the mass view that this constituted gross negligence.

As to the facts, well perhaps those on the anti-McCann side could do what a prosecutor would do if a case ever actually came to trial, build an actual case. Not say things like, “there are over 100 pieces of evidence” or “the whole think stinks” or “this or that is very suspicious”. Actually offer a scenario of how the whole thing went down and cite what evidence supported that scenario. It need not (nor could not) be completely detailed, but even a broad outline would be a start.

The difficulty is that the most popular scenario requires that we invest in the McCanns the truly extraordinary capacity to exhibit the exceedingly rare in one, let alone two people, ultra psychopathic behaviour which would allow them to behave normally despite their daughter being dead. It is utterly implausible and anyone who isn’t completely biased should see that that quite simply is not what happened. It is far more implausible than the intruder though the window scenario and indeed, it is even less credible that the scenario that they actually ARE psychopaths who willingly murdered their daughter.

If we are going to permit that individuals be allowed extraordinary characteristics in order to make our preferred scenario work then can we not assume the intruder(s) through the window has some bizarre OCD based reason for taking the trouble to avoid leaving physical evidence? Or similarly with any police officer or journalist or witness who was close to the case.

Utterly daft of course and that is the stuff of conspiracy theories. Much more sensible to say that that scenario is simply not what happened and look for a better one.

I do concede that it is very possible, but IMO improbable, that the McCanns were involved (I notice in a post above once again, this silly suggestion that they might be innocent but not completely innocent!) but I would say, with almost total certainly, that it did not happen the way many people are saying.

PS Amusing that the TheZohan thanked this post, almost immediately after he throw out the silly “Team McCann” slur again. :pac:

sunflower27

Surely the abduction theory is also a conspiracy theory. No-one saw anyone take the child and Jane Tanner's story of seeing a man carrying a child has more holes than a sieve.

No-one heard any child scream.

I really don't get why this is considered any more plausible. The McCanns said their child was abducted, but they were not around to actually see it happen so I can't understand why people put any more weight in their version of events.

ETA: And I will also never understand why kate and Gerry returned to the UK after saying they would stay there till they found her. As soon as the tide turned on them, they were heading home. It's all very coincidental, no? I am not a parent, but I can only imagine that a parent whose child was abducted would stay in the country and help in any way possible to aid the search. Surely you would want to feel as close to her as possible. Surely you would want to be there if a body was found nearby? It's not the sort of trip you want to make back. I 100% believe they knew that her body would not be found and they wanted to get out of there and get themselves protected legally.

Silver Moon

Seachmall wrote: »

In fairness there is no clear evidence that eliminates anyone in that resort from involvement in her disappearance. It's extremely difficult to prove somebody didn't commit a crime which is why we assume innocence until guilt is proven.

I agree, but the context of that comment was that the McCanns were asking the Leicestershire Police for access to the information they held on the case and the police said 'get stuffed' because there's still a chance you might be guilty.

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

Surely the abduction theory is also a conspiracy theory.

This talk of a conspiracy theory is simply daft. CT pretty much applies when an alternative is offered to the “official” explanation. And while the official explanation here (legally) is that the McCanns were not involved a more reasonable attitude is that we don’t yet know what happened so we don’t have an official explanation and thus we cannot yet have a conspiracy.

sunflower27 wrote: »

I really don't get why this is considered any more plausible. The McCanns said their child was abducted, but they were not around to actually see it happen so I can't understand why people put any more weight in their version of events.

The only people who cite the evidence of the McCanns and their friends are those who think they were involved. The rest of us don’t think their testimony is reliable.

The difficulty with the accidental death scenario is that no one has put together a version of how it might have happened that does not have seriously implausible elements. What we are getting it lots of people saying there is enough suspicious elements to construct a case. But they just keep reciting these, they don't actually make the case.

sunflower27

I believe that madeleine died in the apartment, I believe her body was kept in the apartment until a point when it could be removed (hence the cadavar smell). I think it was Gerry that disposed of her little body (am not too familiar with talk of a missing sports bag, but if that is the case then I belive that is how she was moved).

I think that Madeleine was disposed of at sea. There was some comment years ago of (I think) Gerry saying find the body and prove we did it. He knows a body will never be found.

I believe Kate screaming 'they've taken her' was a botched job that was pre-planned to get the abduction snowball rolling. Why would anyone start ringing home etc when the initial reaction would be she has just wandered out of the apartment after waking up? Why would they not check that she hadn't wandered into a neighbour's place for comfort on not finding her parents there when she woke up.

This to me is by far the most plausible scenario.

But can I prove it? No more than anyone can prove a boogie man kidnapped her.

Just my thoughts...

iamwhoiam

Sunflower I tend to agree with most of that .Yes I think alot of the initial talk of abduction was far too early and almost seemed pre planned .Seeds seemed to be sown by dropping the word abductor , she taken , they took her etc etc and it stuck .
Till this day people will speak of " the abductor " as if it was a fact and as if he is a certainty . Where as nothing is a certainty at all .

sunflower27

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Sunflower I tend to agree with most of that .Yes I think alot of the initial talk of abduction was far too early and almost seemed pre planned .Seeds seemed to be sown by dropping the word abductor , she taken , they took her etc etc and it stuck .
Till this day people will speak of " the abductor " as if it was a fact and as if he is a certainty . Where as nothing is a certainty at all .

I also think it strange that the neighbour above asked kate what was going on. You'd have thought that the first thing they would have done was bang down the doors of all neighbours to see if madeleine had gone visiting or whatever.

I am also very intrigued with Kate's action the night before. Please someone correct me if I am wrong here... but didn't kate stay home the previous evening after all the crying and then it stopping? Did she claim she was ill?

Some people believe that Madeleine died on the night of May 2 although I don't know how credible that is because I am sure she was 'seen' on May 3 at the creche?

I suppose that is why people question the last photo (taken on May 3 as a fake) although I am not overly familar with that...

TheZohanS

lugha wrote: »

This talk of a conspiracy theory is simply daft. CT pretty much applies when an alternative is offered to the “official” explanation. And while the official explanation here (legally) is that the McCanns were not involved a more reasonable attitude is that we don’t yet know what happened so we don’t have an official explanation and thus we cannot yet have a conspiracy.

That is not correct. Legally it is said that the McCanns may have had something to do with her disappearance, neither police force has stated that the McCanns are innocent. There is not enough evidence to convict as there is no body.

The difficulty with the accidental death scenario is that no one has put together a version of how it might have happened that does not have seriously implausible elements. What we are getting it lots of people saying there is enough suspicious elements to construct a case. But they just keep reciting these, they don't actually make the case.

As it stands the accidental death story is more credible than the abduction theory.

Kess73

dark crystal wrote: »

This is it - going round in circles, talking about numerous different theoretical hypothesis as to how the McCanns may have killed and disposed of their daughter and how they are boldly getting away with it when these people have never even been charged with a crime and could well be innocent!

There seems little point in arguing with these beliefs any more as people will believe what they like (and are perfectly entitled to do so) and I doubt anything will change their minds on this matter. Getting kinda tired of the sarcastic digs aimed at anyone who might dare to believe the McCanns as well.

Like you and everyone else, I hope this case is resolved in time and the culprit/s are brought to justice. But we do seem to be knee deep into conspiracy theory territory on the thread at the moment, whatever way you look at it.

To be fair, very few said the McCanns killed their child. My own take, as I have said a number of times, is that if there was not an abduction then the child may have died in some kind of freak accident and the parent's in a state of panic did something stupid and have been covering that up ever since.

The friends may not be in on the accident, if there was one, and may just be guilty of making statements based on what the McCann claimed happened.

The constant contradictions with what the McCanns and their friends said in 2007/2008 to now is a bit worrying though.

An example would be the link, think it was to sky news, that was put up in this thread last night to the David Payne comment about the pact he had with his friend/friends over the night. Then a few years later Gerry McCann denies that comment was ever made and basically tried to make out that the interview with reporters never happened. They just seem too comfortable with revisionism for my liking.