Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

maebee

lugha wrote: »

Possible.

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.

I did not accuse anybody of paedophilia. Please note the "IFs" in my post. I said it was possible, just as you yourself have said "Possible". Of course I'm not pretty sure. Nobody is. We are all here trying to figure out what happened. You asked why would they cover up an accidental death and I gave you a POSSIBLE reason. Make of it what you will.

K-9

lugha wrote: »

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:

There is also a gap from when the McCann's went to dinner and the alarm was raised. The only person who seen Maddie during this time was Gerry so we only have his word on it, then we have the Irish couples evidence of seeing a man carrying a child, this was before the alert. They later identified him as Gerry, so it could have been around this time frame.

From the Amaral files:

Here is the chronological sequence of visits to the apartment:

- 21.05: Gerald McCann (the children are fine);

- 21.10/21.15: Jane Tanner (states having observed the alleged abductor with a child in his arms);

- 21.30: Matthew Oldfield: (goes into the apartment, but doesn't go into the bedroom. He only sees the twins);

- 22.00: Kate Healy (goes into the apartment, and finds that Madeleine has disappeared).

Then we have the deleted call in Gerry's phone on that night which is odd, maybe he did ring the others for help but we might never know.

Then you have the attempted extortion and even one of the English officers remarked about his cold outward appearance and explained it as part of bring a doctor.

Did Gerald McCann know that this lead would take us to a dead end? Is that the reason he appeared to be so nonchalant? Or was it due to the coldness that he never lost throughout the investigation - an attitude that made one of the English police officers say: "Don't forget he's a heart surgeon and he cuts people open before breakfast. "

Then you have the Smith's evidence:

A MAN WITH A CHILD IN HIS ARMS

May 3rd, after 9.27pm, Dolphin restaurant,
Vila da Luz

The Smiths, from Ireland, are spending their holiday in Praia da Luz. After having dinner at the restaurant, they go to Kelly's bar, 50 metres away. They leave there at around 9.55pm to go back to their apartment in Estrela da Luz, west of the Ocean Club, 300 metres further on. They don't stay late because the next morning one of them has to go back to Ireland. It's a big family, of four adults and five children: the father, aged 58, retired, and his wife; their 12 year-old daughter; their two grand-children aged 10 and 4 (their mother stayed in Ireland); their son accompanied by his wife - who is pregnant - and their two children aged 13 and 6.

They go in a northerly direction, the group spreading out; the children are never far away from the adults. There's nobody about. They climb a few steps to reach 25 de Abril street, cross it and turn left into 1 de Maio street, that runs along the west side of the Ocean Club. They haven't gone 30 metres when they come across a man walking up the middle of the road. He is carrying a child in his arms, head resting on his left shoulder. The Smiths don't see the face of the little girl, whose arms hang by her sides. She is dressed in pale-coloured, maybe pink, pyjamas; her feet are bare, she is white and she has blonde hair that covers her neck. The individual's appearance gives the impression that he is not a tourist. He is wearing cream-coloured or beige trousers, classic in style, perhaps linen or cotton. He is a white man, aged around 30 to 35, with no other distinguishing features: he is between 1.70m and 1.80m tall, is visibly in good physical condition; his brown hair is cut short, his face is tanned.

On the monitoring system which for some strange reason got far more frequent that night:

There is no doubt that the adults (apart from the Paynes, who were using a baby monitor) were taking regular turns during dinner to check that the children were asleep - the restaurant's register confirms it. Nevertheless, after the meal, the children could sometimes be left for more than an hour without supervision. Until May 3rd, the adults made the trip every 30 minutes; on that night, according to what the group said, the intervals between visits did not exceed 15 minutes.

Then the 2 contradictory lists on Madeline's book:

It is Russell O'Brien, who hands over to the first police officer to arrive on the scene, two lists written on the cover of a children's sticker album, that probably belonged to Madeleine. How come it had been torn up? A child has just disappeared and one of her books is used to write on? That pays very little consideration to...Didn't they have anything else to hand, a slip of paper or a paper napkin? Another unanswered question.

These two lists describe, hour by hour, how the evening progressed.

On the first, we read:

8.45pm - All assembled at poolside for food.
9.00pm - Matt Oldfield listens at all three windows 5A,B,D
ALL shutters down.
9.15pm - Gerry McCann looks at room A ? Door open to bedroom.
9.20pm - Jane Tanner checkS 5D - Sees stranger walking, carrying a child.
9.30pm - Russell O'Brien in 5D - poorly daughter.
9.55pm
10pm - Alarm raised after Kate
(At the bottom of this list is the name GERALD in block capitals.)

On the second list differences are noted that are not trivial.

8.45 - pool
Matt returns 9.00 - 9.05 - listened at all three.
- all shutters down.
Jerry - 9 10 - 9.15 in to room - all well
? did he check?
9.20/5 - (??) Jane checked 5D Sees stranger I child.
9.30 - Russ + ( word scored through) Matt check all three
9.35 - Matt checks door Sees twins

-\
9.50 Russ returns
9.55 - Kate (word indecipherable) Madeleine
10.pm - Alarm raised.

Why the sudden change from at most 15 minutes but usually 30 minute checks at best to 5/10 minutely checks at one stage?

I think there is more chance in this timeline than after the alert has been raised and there's a good chance somebody would spot him.

iamwhoiam

mw3guc wrote: »

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.

I have know doctors take drugs from wards and sedate their kids on long haul flights . Not once , not twice but on a good few occasions ,it astounded me and made me wonder if they were also giving them sedatives at other times .One doctor took enough to sedate his child on a flight to Dubai and when I asked him why he said " Why not "
Now , not for one minute am I saying the Mc Canns did because I dont know that but it is a possibilty and not unheard of . Madeleine did say to Kate that she and Sean cried the night before ,so did they increase it to be sure the following night? Who knows .

Chicke

Ok.for me I'm going to leave this thread and hope beyond hope that that little girl is not suffering a living he'll as we speak

I personally am still undecided.I find the timelines too short and Gerry is in the bar when the smith sighting happened to allow for concealment

But then there is the evidence of the sniffer dog

So ,I just don't know
I started reading this thread a few weeks ago with tears in my eyes for that precious girl.
And I hope she gets justice,whoever is responsible for this horrific crime
That's all that matters

DexyDrain

Chicke wrote: »

Ok.for me I'm going to leave this thread and hope beyond hope that that little girl is not suffering a living he'll as we speak

I personally am still undecided.I find the timelines too short and Gerry is in the bar when the smith sighting happened to allow for concealment

But then there is the evidence of the sniffer dog

So ,I just don't know
I started reading this thread a few weeks ago with tears in my eyes for that precious girl.
And I hope she gets justice,whoever is responsible for this horrific crime
That's all that matters

We don't know for sure Gerry was in the Tapas, no independent witnesses to back that up.

I think Pat Brown has given the most plausible theory that covers the main objections raised here. Requires no 'jolly death dinner' and psycopathic tendencies. Edit: Just buy the profile on Amazon..

Mistyeyes321

DexyDrain wrote: »

We don't know for sure Gerry was in the Tapas, no independent witnesses to back that up.

I think Pat Brown has given the most plausible theory that covers the main objections raised here. Requires no 'jolly death dinner' and psycopathic tendencies. Edit: Just buy the profile on Amazon..

I don't know if I have got this right so please don't jump on me if it's wrong, I'm sure I read somewhere (That there was a Apartment that was empty near the Mcs Apartment) If this is true was this Apartment checked on the night Maddie went missing?! The reason I ask is everyone is thinking this Man who supposedly abducted her was the person Tanner seen. What IF either Maddie was abducted & held in this empty apartment? with there only being a small window of Oppotunity?! Or Infact Maybe it could have been used by the Mcs IF They did cover this Dealth up....Please note the "IF'S" :P

maebee

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

What IF either Maddie was abducted & held in this empty apartment? with there only being a small window of Oppotunity?! Or Infact Maybe it could have been used by the Mcs IF They did cover this Dealth up....Please note the "IF'S" :P

I'm glad you said "IF" Misty, because

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

DexyDrain

Was re-reading parts of the files earlier, I thought this assessment of the initial searches for Madeleine by the PJ, written by specialist Mark Harrison, might interest those who believe this would have to have been the 'most successful and audacious crime in living memory':

"Major Sequeira has not benefited from any formal training or accreditation in the management of searching for missing persons.

'The search officers - with the exception of the search and rescue team dispatched from Lisbon - had not benefited from any formal training in search procedures.'

Portuguese search dogs were sent in to help with the hunt, but only after five days, despite a warning from their handlers that they should be used within 48 hours."

dark crystal

maebee wrote: »

I'm glad you said "IF" Misty, because

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

Indeed. However, I thought that was what this thread was all about.....

Mistyeyes321

maebee wrote: »

I'm glad you said "IF" Misty, because

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

It's just a thought that occured to me I can't even remember where I read this now! It might not be true, Just saying it is though. Couldn't this have been an ideal place for any Abductor to place the child I know I don't believe the Timelines, So just playing Devil's advocote here. But if by some Miracle the Mcs are telling the Truth & their friends & I know itis a big ask but just for saying sake, Would this be a likely thing that could have happened? Because the timeline is such a small window & the same goes if you dismiss the Abductor could this have been a Place of interest for the Mcs to place this Child till early next morning?

DexyDrain

Personally, I think the Smiths did in fact see Madeleine being carried in the direction of the beach.

K-9

DexyDrain wrote: »

Was re-reading parts of the files earlier, I thought this assessment of the initial searches for Madeleine by the PJ, written by specialist Mark Harrison, might interest those who believe this would have to have been the 'most successful and audacious crime in living memory':

"Major Sequeira has not benefited from any formal training or accreditation in the management of searching for missing persons.

'The search officers - with the exception of the search and rescue team dispatched from Lisbon - had not benefited from any formal training in search procedures.'

Portuguese search dogs were sent in to help with the hunt, but only after five days, despite a warning from their handlers that they should be used within 48 hours."

Indeed, The Amaral files are pretty objective and critical.

goat2

DexyDrain wrote: »

Was re-reading parts of the files earlier, I thought this assessment of the initial searches for Madeleine by the PJ, written by specialist Mark Harrison, might interest those who believe this would have to have been the 'most successful and audacious crime in living memory':

"Major Sequeira has not benefited from any formal training or accreditation in the management of searching for missing persons.

'The search officers - with the exception of the search and rescue team dispatched from Lisbon - had not benefited from any formal training in search procedures.'

Portuguese search dogs were sent in to help with the hunt, but only after five days, despite a warning from their handlers that they should be used within 48 hours."

and since people without proper training were investigating a missing child, also these dog handlers may not have been very well trained either, every turn they took were all too late, it is possible, it ruined any chances of this little girl being found,
People are used to the british police doing brilliant work, very professional, doing a good job

Mistyeyes321

DexyDrain wrote: »

We don't know for sure Gerry was in the Tapas, no independent witnesses to back that up.

I think Pat Brown has given the most plausible theory that covers the main objections raised here. Requires no 'jolly death dinner' and psycopathic tendencies. Edit: Just buy the profile on Amazon..

This Pat brown is selling this on Amazon? For how much?!
I could be way off base here but is there anyone out there not charging for their story?! Is there really not one person who doesn't want any Financial gain from this Child?!

Mistyeyes321

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

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."

Must admit I like Gob****e:pac: Kinda say's it all.:pac:

AskMyChocolate

lugha wrote: »

You might want to read my post again.
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.

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?

. Have you considered looking at empirical data, or police records, or social services statistics?


Who do you think abuses children ? The "shifty looking bloke from the mental hospital" with the limp?

If your position wasn't laughable it would be disturbing.

IMO

Choco

Silver Moon

goat2 wrote: »

People are used to the british police doing brilliant work, very professional, doing a good job

lugha

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

. Have you considered looking at empirical data, or police records, or social services statistics?


Who do you think abuses children ? The "shifty looking bloke from the mental hospital" with the limp?

If your position wasn't laughable it would be disturbing.

IMO

Choco

Back on the sauce I see!
Once again, the erroneous comparison and simplistic analysis. i.e. Many people do very bad things and can effortlessly disguise them. Therefore any person in any situation can project any emotion that suits their purpose equally effortlessly. :rolleyes:

Yeah, laughable is a good word here! (As is disturbing, I might have you sitting on a jury judging me some day :P)

K-9

lugha wrote: »

Back on the sauce I see!
Once again, the erroneous comparison and simplistic analysis. i.e. Many people do very bad things and can effortlessly disguise them. Therefore any person in any situation can project any emotion that suits their purpose equally effortlessly. :rolleyes:

This is the strange thing for me, you and others know it's possible people can cover up or hide bad things but for some strange reason it can't be the McCanns. I can't quite figure that one out.

AudreyHepburn

K-9 wrote: »

This is the strange thing for me, you and others know it's possible people can cover up or hide bad things but for some strange reason it can't be the McCanns. I can't quite figure that one out.

Of course we know people are capable of cover-ups. But I, and probably others, just find it hard to believe that two parents who killed their child accidentaly or otherwise could have kept the charade up for so long. I could believe they might manage it for a few days or weeks or maybe months but not for four years. Some-one involved would have slipped long ago.

It really is not that difficult to understand tbh.

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course we know people are capable of cover-ups. But I, and probably others, just find it hard to believe that two parents who killed their child accidentaly or otherwise could have kept the charade up for so long. I could believe they might manage it for a few days or weeks or maybe months but not for four years. Some-one involved would have slipped long ago.

It really is not that difficult to understand tbh.

It is easy to understand why they kept it up when you think about what they had to lose from being found guilty of possibly sedating their children. They lose their jobs, standing in the community, prestige. They are vilified the world over... possibly lose custody of the twins.

I imagine once the ball started rolling and they had the PM's wife ringing them, the Pope and God knows who else behind them that it was easier to keep going.

When money started pouring in they would also have been acutely aware that to not keep up the facade would make them guilty of fraud.

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

It is easy to understand why they kept it up when you think about what they had to lose from being found guilty of possibly sedating their children. They lose their jobs, standing in the community, prestige. They are vilified the world over... possibly lose custody of the twins.

I imagine once the ball started rolling and they had the PM's wife ringing them, the Pope and God knows who else behind them that it was easier to keep going.

When money started pouring in they would also have been acutely aware that to not keep up the facade would make them guilty of fraud.

But why would they care about their careers, reputations and so forth?

This is their daughter we are talking about and I have not yet seen any evidence to suggest other than they loved and adored her so I find it hard to imagine that on finding her dead they would care only about their own prestige etc.

I'm sorry but keeping this kind of charade going for four years just is not plausible to me.

NTMK

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But why would they care about their careers, reputations and so forth?

This is their daughter we are talking about and I have not yet seen any evidence to suggest other than they loved and adored her so I find it hard to imagine that on finding her dead they would care only about their own prestige etc.

I'm sorry but keeping this kind of charade going for four years just is not plausible to me.

other than leaving her and the twins on their own repeatedly while they went off to dinner:rolleyes:

Personally i dont think it was their rep they would be worried about more the criminal charges that would follow if madeline died while unsupervised

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But why would they care about their careers, reputations and so forth?

This is their daughter we are talking about and I have not yet seen any evidence to suggest other than they loved and adored her so I find it hard to imagine that on finding her dead they would care only about their own prestige etc.

I'm sorry but keeping this kind of charade going for four years just is not plausible to me.

There is no need to be sorry, you are entitled to your opinion.

Oh, I also forgot wasting police time and money, meant to throw that in the mix as well.

I know it is hard to fathom anyone could think of their career and lifestyle, but in their minds their daughter had died and nothing was going to bring her back wither way. Come clean and lose everything or keep up the charade and try and get the public onside.

People lie all the time, people take lies to their graves. The McCanns had prestigious lives that by all accounts they had worked very hard to get and even the children (through IVF). I can 100% understand why they did not want to confess and risk everything.

Have you seen the interview below. As much as you cannot fathom the McCanns being involved, I can't fathom why they were not out on the streets after Madeleine 'disappeared' searching everywhere for her. Some people have surmised she wandered off and fell down a drain, if that is the case, why did her own parents do nothing?

They knew what she was wearing the night she 'disappeared', they also knew that if she was out walking around on her own that she would want to hear their voices.

The McCanns laid very, very low in those early crucial days - which makes perfect sense if you are coming to terms with your own personal grief and know your daughter is gone, never to return.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWCVSjIJk8

maebee

Mistyeyes321 wrote: »

This Pat brown is selling this on Amazon? For how much?!

£2.00

lugha

K-9 wrote: »

This is the strange thing for me, you and others know it's possible people can cover up or hide bad things but for some strange reason it can't be the McCanns. I can't quite figure that one out.

Perhaps you should re-read the post you quoted, I think it addresses your problem. In short, all cover ups are not equally easy to pull off.

After any staged abduction I have no great difficulty in believing that the McCanns could have drawn on the undoubted anguish at the death of their daughter and project it as anxiety for a missing child. This indeed has been done many times.

My problem is with the suggestion that a relatively normal couple, not psychopaths with a natural and chilling capacity to express no emotion, not serial child abusers who have practiced the art of deception over time, could simply at will, summons the ability, not the motive mind, the ability, to project a happy exterior for a couple of hours, when internally they were distraught. As always, you have to qualify by saying "nothing is impossible". But then is in the same league of implausibility as the intruder through the window scenario.

I do not know a single person who could even come close to pulling this off, I think you probably would have to be of a psychopathic mind to do so.

Anyway, why the obsession with insisting that the McCanns did pull off this remarkable feat? Have you contemplated that there may be a scenario where they are in fact guilty but which does not require this tall tale?

sunflower27

lugha wrote: »

Perhaps you should re-read the post you quoted, I think it addresses your problem. In short, all cover ups are not equally easy to pull off.

After any staged abduction I have no great difficulty in believing that the McCanns could have drawn on the undoubted anguish at the death of their daughter and project it as anxiety for a missing child. This indeed has been done many times.

My problem is with the suggestion that a relatively normal couple, not psychopaths with a natural and chilling capacity to express no emotion, not serial child abusers who have practiced the art of deception over time, could simply at will, summons the ability, not the motive mind, the ability, to project a happy exterior for a couple of hours, when internally they were distraught. As always, you have to qualify by saying "nothing is impossible". But then is in the same league of implausibility as the intruder through the window scenario.

I do not know a single person who could even come close to pulling this off, I think you probably would have to be of a psychopathic mind to do so.

Anyway, why the obsession with insisting that the McCanns did pull off this remarkable feat? Have you contemplated that there may be a scenario where they are in fact guilty but which does not require this tall tale?

How can you possibly know how anyone would act in the situation the McCann's found themselves in? How often do parents find a 'dead' child that they should have been responsible for?

You or anyone cannot possibly know.

You don't have to be a psychopath to make a decision to try and save yourself and your own life (career, crediblity, children, family) when you know there is no saving your daughter.

They were able to pull off the feat by not answering any questions; and to be honest there are conflicting stories of their events that evening as well that they have made themselves.

They were also quick to get heavyweights behind them and top-notch legal professionals.

Fortunately more and more people are starting to see that things aren't always what they seem. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when more people were questioning the McCann involvement.

AudreyHepburn

sunflower27 wrote: »

How can you possibly know how anyone would act in the situation the McCann's found themselves in? How often do parents find a 'dead' child that they should have been responsible for?

You or anyone cannot possibly know.

You don't have to be a psychopath to make a decision to try and save yourself and your own life (career, crediblity, children, family) when you know there is no saving your daughter.

They were able to pull off the feat by not answering any questions; and to be honest there are conflicting stories of their events that evening as well that they have made themselves.

They were also quick to get heavyweights behind them and top-notch legal professionals.

Fortunately more and more people are starting to see that things aren't always what they seem. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when more people were questioning the McCann involvement.

Yet you and others seem to feel you know for sure the McCanns know Madeleine is dead and you know they covered it up and so forth.

None of us know either way.

up for anything

sunflower27 wrote: »

How often do parents find a 'dead' child that they should have been responsible for?

Quite often.

You don't have to be a psychopath to make a decision to try and save yourself and your own life (career, crediblity, children, family) when you know there is no saving your daughter.

Don't you? :eek:

sunflower27

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yet you and others seem to feel you know for sure the McCanns know Madeleine is dead and you know they covered it up and so forth.

None of us know either way.

And the reason I believe she is dead is all through this thread.

We don't have to agree by any means (and obviously never will).

Just curious, what is your take on the interview I posted - the way Kate fobbed off the question about physically searching for her daughter in the first days?

For all those that say 'how could they cover this up?'; I ask 'how could they possibly not search?'