Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Seachmall

Chicke wrote: »

the question is why Madeline and not one of the twins

If she was abducted it would quite likely have been by a perv that liked Madeline. The twins were too young and pervs that go after kids that young are few and far between.


Writing that made me shudder :mad:.

AudreyHepburn

I have read all the various scenarios being put forward and I do accept that at this point anything is possible, not plausible mind but possible.

However I have yet to see anyone satisfactorily explain why, if Kate and Gerry found Madeleine dead due to a fall or other type of accident why they would cover it up?

Do they truely honestly seem like the type of couple who, on discovering their first-born daughter, whom it took them rounds of IVF to have, dead would be concerned only with their reputations and careers. Do people really think they would not have panicked and gone to find help asap?

DerekWaters

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have read all the various scenarios being put forward and I do accept that at this point anything is possible, not plausible mind but possible.

However I have yet to see anyone satisfactorily explain why, if Kate and Gerry found Madeleine dead due to a fall or other type of accident why they would cover it up?

Do they truely honestly seem like the type of couple who, on discovering their first-born daughter, whom it took them rounds of IVF to have, dead would be concerned only with their reputations and careers. Do people really think they would not have panicked and gone to find help asap?

Yes

This couple left their children unsupervised night after night to go socialise. They wouldve lost custody of the twins and probably seen jail for neglect -
A very long sentence if maddie was found to have been drugged.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have read all the various scenarios being put forward and I do accept that at this point anything is possible, not plausible mind but possible.

However I have yet to see anyone satisfactorily explain why, if Kate and Gerry found Madeleine dead due to a fall or other type of accident why they would cover it up?

Do they truely honestly seem like the type of couple who, on discovering their first-born daughter, whom it took them rounds of IVF to have, dead would be concerned only with their reputations and careers. Do people really think they would not have panicked and gone to find help asap?

Well it is hard to believe anybody would do it but stuff like this has happened before.

The checking times seem to be very regular after the event when there is evidence that it wasn't that regular before hand. If they can lie about checking happens to make themselves look better it shows that they were aware this would be an issue. Covering up an accident isn't that much of a stretch from that.

As for IVF and first born etc. unfortunately badly wanting a baby does not make a good parent, not by a long shot.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have read all the various scenarios being put forward and I do accept that at this point anything is possible, not plausible mind but possible.

However I have yet to see anyone satisfactorily explain why, if Kate and Gerry found Madeleine dead due to a fall or other type of accident why they would cover it up?

Do they truely honestly seem like the type of couple who, on discovering their first-born daughter, whom it took them rounds of IVF to have, dead would be concerned only with their reputations and careers. Do people really think they would not have panicked and gone to find help asap?

The same doting parents that left their three beloved children in an unlocked apartment and out of sight night after night?

That left Madeleine crying on her own for the neighbour to hear the night before but left her again the following evening?

I personally always found the sedation theories strange. Why would Kate have jumped to that conclusion regarding the two smaller children. What are the odds an abductor is going to run in and take the time to sedate all the three children before running out with only one child?

if Kate believed this was a genuine concern, why did she not immediately have them taken to hospital? From what I read, the twins slept through all the commotion in the apartment that night so it is possible they were sedated (however mildly) although I am fairly certain it wasn't an 'abductor' that administered it to them.

Had madeleine fallen out of bed and hit her head and died, a post mortem would have been carried out. What could that possibly have shown up? Some form of sedative in her system? Something that two doctors would have had access to.

And what would the fallout of that have been for them criminally and professionally?

AudreyHepburn

But neither of those posts really answer the question of why they would want to cover her death up if it were a complete accident?

Also on the sedation, it was Kate herself who suggested it, why on earth would implicate herself like that?

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But neither of those posts really answer the question of why they would want to cover her death up if it were a complete accident?

Also on the sedation, it was Kate herself who suggested it, why on earth would implicate herself like that?

It's not an accident if a child is given sedatives to sleep and falls out of bed and dies. It means the child was drugged.

Kate suggested an 'abductor' had sedated her children. In my opinion it was a clever ploy to explain the fact the twins didn't stir during the whole commotion. It also explains why no-one heard a scream from any child when someone came in and took Madeleine.

It also 'covers' kate if the twins were tested that evening and sedatives were found in their systems. If kate believed her children had been administered sedatives and one was abducted, why did she not get the twins straight to hospital to determine what sedatives they were? Possibly because she knew exactly what they were because she had administered the doses to them to make sure they slept through the night.

K-9

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But neither of those posts really answer the question of why they would want to cover her death up if it were a complete accident?

Repercussions, guilt, shame.

At this stage if you don't get it and you wont get it, fair enough.

Chicke

Now,not having a clue but wouldn't there be more of a chance of a manslaughter charge if it found she died through misadventure WITH sedatives in The little girls system or indeed through accidental overdose?and hence the need for no body to be found
If there were no sedatives and she accidentally banged her head maybe the parents wouldn't have felt the need to cover up because accidental death
Again,what Ifs.......

sunflower27

Chicke wrote: »

Now,not having a clue but wouldn't there be more of a chance of a manslaughter charge if it found she died through misadventure WITH sedatives in The little girls system or indeed through accidental overdose?and hence the need for no body to be found
If there were no sedatives and she accidentally banged her head maybe the parents wouldn't have felt the need to cover up because accidental death
Again,what Ifs.......

I am not up to speed on my law by any means, but I think it would have been manslaughter if a post mortem was conducted on her body and she was found to have sedatives in her system. If sedatives were found in Madeleine's system, then the twins would have also been tested and if it was found that all three had been sedated, that is a whole whip-ass of trouble for the professional McCann's.

lugha

DerekWaters wrote: »

Yes

This couple left their children unsupervised night after night to go socialise. They wouldve lost custody of the twins and probably seen jail for neglect -
A very long sentence if maddie was found to have been drugged.

Surely the extent of their neglect is the same regardless of whether Madeleine died in an accident when no one was around or she was taken by an abductor?

If they were going to be done for neglect, were they not likely to be done either way?

And there was an even greater risk of them going to jail for perverting the course of justice if they acted as you suggest they did.

The supposed motive here, like much of the "evidence", is not nearly as rock solid as some of you like to pretend.

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

Surely the extent of their neglect is the same regardless of whether Madeleine died in an accident when no one was around or she was taken by an abductor?

If they were going to be done for neglect, were they not likely to be done either way?

And there was an even greater risk of them going to jail for perverting the course of justice if they acted as you suggest they did.

The supposed motive here, like much of the "evidence", is not nearly as rock solid as some of you like to pretend.

Ah, but the abductor story gave them plenty of leeway for sympathy at the start (although that tide has most certainly turned now, thank God). The abduction story made people pity the McCanns.

mw3guc

I can understand many people on this thread having difficulty with the idea that that parents could detach themselves sufficiently from their child's death to carry on normally in the company of others. One must remember, however, that the Mc Canns are both doctors, trained and inured as part of their work to distance themselves from their emotions as a defence mechanism in the face of death.
So, while it would be a huge deal for the average set of parents, it would not be too far a stretch for the Mc Canns to do this for a while - difficult, but not impossible. Their subsequent ability to rein in their emotions and overt grief fits with such a theory. Also, if the checking and timelines are off (for whatever reason) they may not have had to act normally for as long as is imagined for them to eat, drink and be merry.
I'm not saying that this copperfastens their guilt - I accept that this is speculation - but as I have been following this thread over the last few weeks, I am finding myself, however reluctantly, more drawn to the idea that they covered up an accidental death to avoid the consequences to themselves, their working reputation and their responsibilities to their remaining children.

lugha

mw3guc wrote: »

I can understand many people on this thread having difficulty with the idea that that parents could detach themselves sufficiently from their child's death to carry on normally in the company of others. One must remember, however, that the Mc Canns are both doctors, trained and inured as part of their work to distance themselves from their emotions as a defence mechanism in the face of death.
So, while it would be a huge deal for the average set of parents, it would not be too far a stretch for the Mc Canns to do this for a while - difficult, but not impossible. Their subsequent ability to rein in their emotions and overt grief fits with such a theory. Also, if the checking and timelines are off (for whatever reason) they may not have had to act normally for as long as is imagined for them to eat, drink and be merry.
I'm not saying that this copperfastens their guilt - I accept that this is speculation - but as I have been following this thread over the last few weeks, I am finding myself, however reluctantly, more drawn to the idea that they covered up an accidental death to avoid the consequences to themselves, their working reputation and their responsibilities to their remaining children.

Well at least you make a reasonable attempt to address the problem rather that ignore it as most are doing or offer laughable attempts to explain it as one or two others are doing.

Not that you have convinced me. :pac: Doctors certainly can, and have to, detach themselves from the misery they see daily but it is a stretch to suggest that they could think of their own daughter as just another tragic patient.

And in any case, any McCann involvement does not necessary depend on the popular scenario being presented. But like Gerry, some people have irrational attachments to particular explanations that simply do not stand up. :P

mw3guc

lugha wrote: »

Well at least you make a reasonable attempt to address the problem rather that ignore it as most are doing or offer laughable attempts to explain it as one or two others are doing.

Not that you have convinced me. :pac: Doctors certainly can, and have to, detach themselves from the misery they see daily but it is a stretch to suggest that they could think of their own daughter as just another tragic patient.

And in any case, any McCann involvement does not necessary depend on the popular scenario being presented. But like Gerry, some people have irrational attachments to particular explanations that simply do not stand up. :P

Believe me, I haven't even convinced myself fully and I'd so dearly like to be wrong! I'm not a bit influenced by the 'popular scenario' as I have tried to make sense of the various possibilities to arrive at a 'most likely possibility' in a very difficult and muddied scenario. But the 'truthometer' in my head has swung over the last few weeks into my above conclusion, from a position which was the polar opposite at the time the child went missing.

AskMyChocolate

endabob1 wrote: »

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.

QFT

lugha

mw3guc wrote: »

Believe me, I haven't even convinced myself fully and I'd so dearly like to be wrong!

It may well turn out that you are right that the McCanns are actually covering up an accidental death. I just think that there is almost no chance that it happened the way many think it did.

TheZohanS

lugha wrote: »

It may well turn out that you are right that the McCanns are actually covering up an accidental death. I just think that there is almost no chance that it happened the way many think it did.

What do you think happened?

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

Well at least you make a reasonable attempt to address the problem rather that ignore it as most are doing or offer laughable attempts to explain it as one or two others are doing.

Not that you have convinced me. :pac: Doctors certainly can, and have to, detach themselves from the misery they see daily but it is a stretch to suggest that they could think of their own daughter as just another tragic patient.

And in any case, any McCann involvement does not necessary depend on the popular scenario being presented. But like Gerry, some people have irrational attachments to particular explanations that simply do not stand up. :P

So they hold their hands up, admit the children were sedated and a child died in their apartment while they were off having dinner. As a result they are done for manslaughter, face possible jail sentences, their children taken off them, they lose all credibility in the eyes of the public, their professional lives are in tatters and they are shunned for the rest of their lives....

yeah no reason at all to explain why they chose to cover-up anything.

iamwhoiam

mw3guc wrote: »

Believe me, I haven't even convinced myself fully and I'd so dearly like to be wrong! I'm not a bit influenced by the 'popular scenario' as I have tried to make sense of the various possibilities to arrive at a 'most likely possibility' in a very difficult and muddied scenario. But the 'truthometer' in my head has swung over the last few weeks into my above conclusion, from a position which was the polar opposite at the time the child went missing.

I started off like you feeling so very sorry for the Mc Canns .,Then saw whre they had left their children and listen to how Gerry tried to convince people it was like being at home in the garden . He made me so cross saying that rubbish as it was cleary untrue and unlike any garden I have ever seen . Unless you have a public road and a pool between your patio and your door .He was either trying to cod himself or trying to cover up a majorly neglegtful behaviour .
It made me listen more carefully to his words , watch his body language and listen to others who had something to say and who didnt blindly believe, that simply because Kate said so it was necessarily true .
Slowely but surely they started to sow the seeds of doubt , with thier behaviour and a list of things that made me sit up and take note ,
Then doubt strenghtned and I began to see manipulation and seed sowing and it all was leading me to doubt more and more .,
I am still unsure , still would love to know the truth , still doubting . But one thing that is glaringly obvious is that neglect took place, the kids were left in danger and the parents lost credibility for me by that alone . Any parent who puts themselves first thus endangering their children for me dont deserve support .
Madeleine is the big looser and whoever harmed her has to live with it and one day I hope the truth is out .

K-9

lugha wrote: »

Well at least you make a reasonable attempt to address the problem rather that ignore it as most are doing or offer laughable attempts to explain it as one or two others are doing.

That must be the twentieth time it has been explained in this thread but I suppose acknowledging that would give less of a chance of a condescending dig.

AskMyChocolate

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.

Obviously. I don't think there is a rational poster here who would convict the McCanns on the available evidence. However, statistically, where a child is harmed/is "abducted"/goes missing, there is overwhelming proof and statistics to show that it is rarely down to a "mysterious abductor".

The fact that TeamMcCann have consistently tried to stymie the efforts of two police forces in their quest for the truth, the circumstancial evidence available, and their smug dismissal of the dogs' evidence, would lead any rational impartial thinker to view them with grave scepticism.

Doesn't mean they are guilty or innocent, it just means what it means.

In the same way as if a multi-millionaire is found butchered in his/her apartment and the spouse refuses to engage with the police, the spotlight will inevitably fall on that person because they, statistically, are the most likely person to have committed the crime.

The chances of it being some random nutter, who just escaped from the mental hospital are statistically pretty slim.

Doesn't mean they're guilty.

lugha

TheZohan wrote: »

What do you think happened?

If they are guilty? I think Madeleine may have wandered out of the apartment and had a fatal accident nearby. Thus initially it did seem like an abduction.
Perhaps the McCanns or their friends found her after the alarm had been raised and in a bad judgement call, made a snap decision to conceal it. Something along those lines.

It doesn't need the fanciful suggestion that the McCanns happily sat through dinner when their daughter was dead. And it offers a better explanation of why the friends might have got involved (they were bounced into it perhaps only having a couple of seconds to think about it) and it would explain why their story lines don't match up (no time to fix them). For me something like that might work.

But I still favour the abduction theory. Works a charm except for those feckers of dogs. :pac:

mw3guc

Strange as it might seem, and despite all my suspicions, I STILL feel very sorry for the Mc Canns! Whether Madeleine did indeed die in an accident that they covered up or was abducted through their negligence, THEY are the ultimate losers in the whole tragedy. Madeleine's suffering is over - theirs will continue for as long as they live.
In a way, as an explanation for why they might continue with a sham search, keeping on keeping on is their own self-inflicted punishment - keeping the wounds fresh. No matter what the ultimate truth is, they can never get away from their guilt and their unavoidable contribution to the loss of their daughter. No one can envy them that

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

That must be the twentieth time it has been explained in this thread but I suppose acknowledging that would give less of a chance of a condescending dig.

Actually it has not been explained at all. What has been said many times is that people have frequently feigned concern for a missing loved one when they themselves were actually responsible for the person being missing.

iamwhoiam

mw3guc wrote: »

Strange as it might seem, and despite all my suspicions, I STILL feel very sorry for the Mc Canns! Whether Madeleine did indeed die in an accident that they covered up or was abducted through their negligence, THEY are the ultimate losers in the whole tragedy. Madeleine's suffering is over - theirs will continue for as long as they live.
In a way, as an explanation for why they might continue with a sham search, keeping on keeping on is their own self-inflicted punishment - keeping the wounds fresh. No matter what the ultimate truth is, they can never get away from their guilt and their unavoidable contribution to the loss of their daughter. No one can envy them that

I think the whole campaign is a way to block out the guilt of neglect to be honest . Blame everyone , staff , PJ , public , dogs , reporters etc etc .So you dont have to look inward and see something you dont like .

maebee

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

However I have yet to see anyone satisfactorily explain why, if Kate and Gerry found Madeleine dead due to a fall or other type of accident why they would cover it up?

I have answered this question many times. IF Madeleine had died as a result of an accident and IF there was something sinister going on within the group (I sincerely hope not, but in light of the Gaspars' statements, it is possible) there would be a very good reason why her body could not be presented for autopsy and had to be disposed of.

DerekWaters

mw3guc wrote: »

Strange as it might seem, and despite all my suspicions, I STILL feel very sorry for the Mc Canns! Whether Madeleine did indeed die in an accident that they covered up or was abducted through their negligence, THEY are the ultimate losers in the whole tragedy. Madeleine's suffering is over - theirs will continue for as long as they live.
In a way, as an explanation for why they might continue with a sham search, keeping on keeping on is their own self-inflicted punishment - keeping the wounds fresh. No matter what the ultimate truth is, they can never get away from their guilt and their unavoidable contribution to the loss of their daughter. No one can envy them that

Madeleine is the loser out of all this

lugha

maebee wrote: »

I have answered this question many times. IF Madeleine had died as a result of an accident and IF there was something sinister going on within the group (I sincerely hope not, but in light of the Gaspars' statements, it is possible) there would be a very good reason why her body could not be presented for autopsy and had to be disposed of.

Possible, if you ignore the rather troublesome problem that for there to be any merit in this, we need to believe that two paedophiles would happily make their deviance known to someone who was not sympathetic.

Accusing, or even suggesting, that someone may be involved in paedophilia is a serious business and I think you need to be pretty sure before you start throwing accusations around.

Anyway, I though everybody was happy with the " we won't be done for neglect if she is abducted but will if she had an accident line" as a motive? I don't think you are allowed to have two motives? :P

mw3guc

Something as straightforward as an excess of sedatives (especially such as might only be available on prescription) would be enough to make the production of a body for pathology a no-no. Such evidence of malpractice would be a big incentive for a cover-up.