Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
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.
.
This theory is certainly more plausible than the the overdose scenario to me.
I certainly don't think any group of people (such as the McCann's friends)would willingly cover up a child's death knowingly and put themselves in the firing line (not to mention the utter immorality of it) if they themselves had no hand or part in that child's death.
As a parent, the biggest obstacle for me in believeing in the McCanns guilt is their manner and demeanour during a time after which they supposedly found their daughter dead.
Which sane parent, in their right minds, would discover their child's dead body and instead of calling for an ambulance, concoct such a cold and calculating false scenario and then just somehow dispose of her little body as if it were yesterday's rubbish, without anyone discovering it in the meantime? Would any parent in such a state of shock and grief be able to do such a thing?
If she died accidentally, they would have been much less culpable for that, than the crime they then supposedly proceeded with?
Why continue keeping the case in the headlines? Why not just go home and be relieved you got away with it?
Sorry for all the questions
but these are the same questions which really lead me to the belief that they are more likely to be innocent than guilty in this case. The thought that any parent could conceivably do this to their child and simply carry on regardless, just beggars belief. 0 -
I remember seeing a documentary on the story ,the little girl was rescued from a fairly well to do family in Belfast and went back to( I think) Ballyfermot to a working class area .She found it incredibly difficult , the accents , the area , the family , the culture was alien to the little child . I think she struggled for a very long time .Bless her .
Poor little thing.
I remember watching The Changeling there a while back about Christine Collins and the search for her son (talk about a police cover up there..!!) and one of the missing boys did eventually turn up a few years later after escaping from his abductor. A terribly sad story.
Also, look at the Kasey Lee Dugard story.
There are some very bad people in the world....0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
You might want to read my post again.sunflower27 wrote: »Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said they were psychopaths and I never said they murdered their daughter.
Yes they are capable of feigning anguish / grief. This is easy to do and what everybody is giving examples of. Feigning carefree happiness when your child is lying dead (and as you say, they are NOT murderers or psychopaths or whatever) is as close to impossible as makes no difference.sunflower27 wrote: »As was explained many many pages ago, people ARE capable of hiding anguish/grief under the most awful circumstances. Think of the stories of people that murder their spouses and then go on TV appealing for help to find some 'intruder' that never existed.
I find it very difficult to believe that anybody looking at this with anything close to an open mind would not immediately dismiss this suggestion as nonsense.
I will only consider that that might have happened when all the less implausible explanations have been ruled out. And TBH, alien abduction is probably a better bet that this.
Why so? The only serious alternative to abduction is that they were involved. Is it really that incredible that they insist that they were not involved?sunflower27 wrote: »ETA: I also find it all incredibly suss the way the McCanns refused to accept any theory other than the abduction theory.0 -
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:
Nah, I just see the slur has gone from McCann haters to Conspiracy theorists.
As for covering it up, most people even posters who think they are completely innocent seem to think they did cover up the times on checking the children.
Thread is a bit silly at this stage, obviously there isn't enough evidence but as posters have continuously said the PJ and English police think the evidence suggests the McCann's as most likely, unpalatable and unimaginable as that is.
Again the big hole is where did they hide the body for 3 weeks with extensive searches and sniffer dog searches in that time.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Nah, I just see the slur has gone from McCann haters to Conspiracy theorists.
As for covering it up, most people even posters who think they are completely innocent seem to think they did cover up the times on checking the children.
Thread is a bit silly at this stage, obviously there isn't enough evidence but as posters have continuously said the PJ and English police think the evidence suggests the McCann's as most likely, unpalatable and unimaginable as that is.
Again the big hole is where did they hide the body for 3 weeks with extensive searches and sniffer dog searches in that time.
I don't think that hiding a body in a huge area where there are many nearby spots with little or no population numbers is that hard to be honest.
Take wherever you are right now on a map for example. Get a compass and place the point of the compass on where you are on that map. Then place the pencil/pen end five miles away and draw that circle. You now have a huge area in which to hide a body which will no doubt contain little stream or rivers where a body could be weighed down, and if you moved the body by car then there is no ground trace for a dog to follow.
Now do the same thing but incease the distance to ten miles and draw that circle. You now have a needle in a haystack scenario to find anything.
I chose five and ten miles as they are distances that could be covered pretty quickly in a car.
Another place where a body could have been hidden is in the church that they had keys to. Members of the public had no access to that church whilst the McCanns had the priest's keys and it was their own private sanctuary for that time. The priest being a Catholic priest would be unable to repeat what he was told if it was said during a formal religious confession, even if what is heard involves the death, accidental or deliberate. The Code of Canon Law prevents a priest from repeating anything heard in confession including anything of a criminal nature regardless of severity. All a priest can do is advise people to admit their actions to the authorities.
Now I am only using this answer as a response to your question about how a body could have been potentially hidden, but the dogs again surface with this answer as they signalled a scent at that very church and also on the rental car that the McCanns got after the child was reported missing, the very same car that was used at times to get to and from that church. .0 -
-
-
-
dark crystal wrote: »This theory is certainly more plausible than the the overdose scenario to me.
I certainly don't think any group of people (such as the McCann's friends)would willingly cover up a child's death knowingly and put themselves in the firing line (not to mention the utter immorality of it) if they themselves had no hand or part in that child's death.
As a parent, the biggest obstacle for me in believeing in the McCanns guilt is their manner and demeanour during a time after which they supposedly found their daughter dead.
Which sane parent, in their right minds, would discover their child's dead body and instead of calling for an ambulance, concoct such a cold and calculating false scenario and then just somehow dispose of her little body as if it were yesterday's rubbish, without anyone discovering it in the meantime? Would any parent in such a state of shock and grief be able to do such a thing?
If she died accidentally, they would have been much less culpable for that, than the crime they then supposedly proceeded with?
Why continue keeping the case in the headlines? Why not just go home and be relieved you got away with it?
Sorry for all the questions but these are the same questions which really lead me to the belief that they are more likely to be innocent than guilty in this case. The thought that any parent could conceivably do this to their child and simply carry on regardless, just beggars belief.
Maybe they did not discover the body. Maybe it was a freak accident as in one of the parents playing with the child and the child fell from the grasp of the parent and hit her head on a radiator and died almost instantly. Pure panic may set in on the part of that parent and by the time they regained some compusure the poor child was dead.
Maybe at that point a bad decision was made to cover it up as they feared that one of them may be charged and imprisoned for something that was tragic accident. Maybe one feared that their family would be broken up by this by the law, and the kind of bad logic that only severve pressure can nurture came to the fore. A story was created and it just went from there.
As for why continue the campaign etc through the media and what not. Well I guess something like that wopuld snowball pretty quickly and in order to maintain an appearance of total innocence, a story/campaign would have to be presented over and over again.
As always that is just speculation on my behalf, but it is the best I can think of straight away in order to answer your questions if the earlier scenario had happened.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement