Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Ann22

Daroxtar wrote: »

Now speaking of people profiteering........ This inept scumbag was involved in beating a woman into signing a confession that she killed her own child and hid the body only a few years before Madeline disapeared. Then he writes a book detailing his own ridiculous ideas. Now even though a judge in his own country rules that he cannot publish it due to it being factually incorrect, he goes ahead and has it published outside the jurisdiction so plenty of like minded idiots can back up their own twisted claims with the ramblings of a drunken moron.

He's a fúckwit of the lowest order and IMO its quite possible he has some involvement with covering up for paedophiles abducting children....just as plausible as the theories blaming the McCanns.

The case you're referring to is the one of Leonor Cipriano. As a matter of fact, she was the fúckwit of the highest order...She abused her little girl, murdered and dismemered her. I hope they beat the crap out of her:mad:.

Daroxtar

I think judging by the way they handled the case right from the off its fairly safe to assume that the Portugese Police were absolute idiots. No searches for 24 hours, no border closure for 48 hours, an agenda of protecting the local tourist economy and a track record of beating women into signing false confessions of killing and disposing of the bodies of their own children... Criminally Negligent is a term that springs to mind.

maebee

Ann22 wrote: »

The case you're referring to is the one of Leonor Cipriano. As a matter of fact, she was the fúckwit of the highest order...She abused her little girl, murdered and dismemered her. I hope they beat the crap out of her:mad:.

Leonor Cipriano is an evil woman who was found guilty of the murder of her daughter:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html

mconigol

ISDW wrote: »

Really? The people that run that have their daughters missing as well - wow, what a huge coincidence.

Maybe you should actually read posts and links before you start making smart remarks.

You know nothing about me, but I have made a huge difference to a lot of children's lives and do indeed get my hands dirty. But again, maybe if you bothered reading people's posts, you'd know that.

I don't know what your first sentence means.

Maybe if the post I replied to didn't smack of resentment towards the McCanns for being "middle class" I wouldn't feel the need to comment.

I read the post you made. I don't need to read every other comment you've ever made to reply to a post in which you didn't reference any of your other posts or comments. They are looking for their daughter which they are perfectly entitled to do.

There's no obligation for them to spend their time and resources on any other activity. It may come across as greedy to you but so what, it's a private endeavor. Plenty of government supported (and unsupported) charities exist to help at-risk children, the McCanns can do whatever they want and whatever it takes to achieve their goal.

TheZohanS

Ann22 wrote: »

The case you're referring to is the one of Leonor Cipriano. As a matter of fact, she was the fúckwit of the highest order...She abused her little girl, murdered and dismemered her. I hope they beat the crap out of her:mad:.

Yup and:

"Mr Amaral was not present at the time of her alleged beating but is accused of covering up for his colleagues, which he strenuously denies."[8] Leonor Cipriano's former lawyer said that Leonor does not know who beat her up.[9]

Dr.Amaral wasn't even there at the time of the alleged incident.

Colmo52

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Very much doubt that. They would have to hire a boat to put her in the deep waters and if they threw her off a cliff her body would more than likely have washed up ashore.

dark crystal wrote: »

Without any witnesses and without ever washing up on shore in the four years since?

Yep, sounds plausible to me alright.

It worked for Bin Laden. (supposedly)

Tipsy McSwagger

Ann22 wrote: »

The case you're referring to is the one of Leonor Cipriano. As a matter of fact, she was the fúckwit of the highest order...She abused her little girl, murdered and dismemered her. I hope they beat the crap out of her:mad:.

But couldn't she have got away with it due to police brutality and a forced confession?

ISDW

mconigol wrote: »

I don't know what your first sentence means.

Maybe if the post I replied to didn't smack of resentment towards the McCanns for being "middle class" I wouldn't feel the need to comment.

I read the post you made. I don't need to read every other comment you've ever made to reply to a post in which you didn't reference any of your other posts or comments. They are looking for their daughter which they are perfectly entitled to do.

There's no obligation for them to spend their time and resources on any other activity. It may come across as greedy to you but so what, it's a private endeavor. Plenty of government supported (and unsupported) charities exist to help at-risk children, the McCanns can do whatever they want and whatever it takes to achieve their goal.

Thats obviously because you don't bother reading posts. Go back and read a bit more, the madeleinefoundation is NOT run by the McCanns or any of their associates. Another poster put a link up to it before my reply. That particular foundation is - as has been pointed out by another poster after my comment - to try and get the law changed on children being left on their own, and it would appear to implicate the McCanns.

I await your apology.

mconigol

Ann22 wrote: »

The case you're referring to is the one of Leonor Cipriano. As a matter of fact, she was the fúckwit of the highest order...She abused her little girl, murdered and dismemered her. I hope they beat the crap out of her:mad:.

TheZohan wrote: »

Yup and:



Dr.Amaral wasn't even there at the time of the alleged incident.

It's not so nice when somebody gets implicated in something they are innocent of is it? These things tend to stick however as can be seen from the way these things are dragged up about Mr Amaral time and time again even though he was cleared.

Edit: He was also found guilty of submitting a false statement in that case. He was appealing it but I don't know it that's still ongoing or what the outcome was.

Daroxtar

Ann22 wrote: »

The case you're referring to is the one of Leonor Cipriano. As a matter of fact, she was the fúckwit of the highest order...She abused her little girl, murdered and dismemered her. I hope they beat the crap out of her:mad:.

Oh yeah? Really?? See any interesting names or evidence pop up

Kess73

Dudess wrote: »

And remember that poor guy Robert Murat who was nearly convicted by the red-tops? Fucking lowlives... Even after he was proven innocent, no doubt some twats were proclaiming "Well, no smoke without fire"...

Well both Gerry McCann and the female friend of the family both described a man that matched his description.

Then that family friend, Jane Tanner, said that what she saw was a woman, then the same person came out some time later and was sure that what she saw was a sallow skinned man of light build with a very distinctive moustache and greasy hair. In short as time went by her memory of the event seemed to improve along with how detailed her description became, right down to clothes worn by the person she saw.

Now people can forget some details in the heat of the moment but there is a hell of a difference between how Murat looks and the last final version that the witness was 100% sure of.


That Murat guy got his face in who knows how many papers and tv news shows as the guy connected to the abduction. And Kate McCann can hold her head high for a lot of what got said about that man in public and for how he still receives death threats on it. She made comments about how she was sure he was guilty and how that he was a suspect "for good reason"


So if Murat is totally innocent then his life has been ruined by the McCanns and their friends saying quite a lot in public in the early days of the investigation about the man.

TheZohanS

mconigol wrote: »

It's not so nice when somebody gets implicated in something they are innocent of is it? These things tend to stick however as can be seen from the way these things are dragged up about Mr Amaral time and time again even though he was cleared.

Nah there was never any doubt as to whether Amaral was involved in the alleged beating of the child murderer, he cleared his name easily by answering any questions that were put to him...unlike the McCanns...who coincidently hired a former British Government "Spin doctor" and something like four SC's. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Daroxtar

maebee wrote: »

Leonor Cipriano is an evil woman who was found guilty of the murder of her daughter:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id176.html

Paul Michael Hill

Gerard "Gerry" Conlon

Patrick "Paddy" Armstrong

Carole Richardson
Evil IRA bombers found guilty of mass murder.........

mconigol

Kess73 wrote: »

For every Wayne O' Dongohue there is someone who does hide the body well. Hence why there are so many missing person cases and unsolved cases where murder is suspected but no body can be found, even years later.


Another odd thing is how the facts presented by the McCanns and their legal teams seemed to become more detailed the more time went by, and little items seemed to become easier to recall with the passing of months. Generally what people can recall becomes a bit blurry the more time that goes by, but in this case their witnesses were able to remember more really detailed bits of "evidence" as months passed, and lots of it only seemed to be remembered once they were back in the UK.



And as for whether a person could come to the same conclusion as me at this point after reading what the police published, the changing stories that the McCanns published, well I think that they could.

When the story first broke I thought the child was kidnapped. But as stories changed and other bits of information were made public I began to think that there was a chance that the parents knew more than they were saying.

You can put the word facts into inverted commas if you like, but I think that official statements by the police forces involved, by two or more sets of senior police involved, by the dog team count as actual facts to be mulled over.

Unless of course we are to assume that both the Portuguese and UK police involved are all idiots and have no idea at all as to what they are doing, and that everything the McCanns said is totally true even the bits that were changed and dropped into the story.


Any unsolved case has doubt attached to it, otherwise it would not be an unsolved case.

Yes there is doubt. It is possible that they were involved. No charges were ever brought however so that says something too.

Let's just say for a moment that they are guilty. They are still running an international campaign to search for her and keep it in peoples minds. If they are guilty then they could very well be inviting their own downfall. So, why do people have a problem with the campaign.

If they did it and the campaign turns up something then they have basically ensnared themselves. Success. If they did not do it and the campaign turns up something then also success.

If the case were to completely fall out of the limelight then the chances of either result dramatically fall.

Kess73

mconigol wrote: »

Yes there is doubt. It is possible that they were involved. No charges were ever brought however so that says something too.

Let's just say for a moment that they are guilty. They are still running an international campaign to search for her and keep it in peoples minds. If they are guilty then they could very well be inviting their own downfall. So, why do people have a problem with the campaign.

If they did it and the campaign turns up something then they have basically ensnared themselves. Success. If they did not do it and the campaign turns up something then also success.

If the case were to completely fall out of the limelight then the chances of either result dramatically fall.

Yep would agree with that.

mconigol

TheZohan wrote: »

Nah there was never any doubt as to whether Amaral was involved in the alleged beating of the child murderer, he cleared his name easily by answering any questions that were put to him...unlike the McCanns...who coincidently hired a former British Government "Spin doctor" and something like four SC's. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

I'm not saying there was no doubt. However people keep bringing it up and there is a lot of misinformation from both sides out there. He was cleared of the beating but he was convicted of filing a false report about the case which as I said was under appeal. My point is that the impression is out there that he was involved in coercing a statement from that woman. That's no different to the impression that's out there that the McCanns were somehow involved in Madelines disappearance.

This "nothing to hide" argument really annoys me as it's totally bogus. Any number of things could be used to trip them up and make them imply their own guilt. Especially if you've got an investigator with a bias towards that conclusion.

TheZohanS

mconigol wrote: »

This "nothing to hide" argument really annoys me as it's totally bogus. Any number of things could be used to trip them up and make them imply their own guilt. Especially if you've got an investigator with a bias towards that conclusion.

Of course it would annoy you, it invalidates your entire argument. I think you're starting to see the light young padawan.

mconigol

TheZohan wrote: »

Of course it would annoy you, it invalidates your entire argument. I think you're starting to see the light young padawan.

lol! It doesn't invalidate anything! Lets say they are innocent and they talk openly with investigators. Anything they say could easily be misconstrued or turned against them. People on this very forum are using the McCanns emotions (or apparent lack of emotions) and twisting it into some kind of sudo evidence against them, imagine what they would do if they were given the opportunity to scrutinise detailed questioning.

Did you look at the video I posted yesterday that highlights my argument?(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

Silence is not an admission of guilt. Better to say nothing than to say the wrong thing.

ISDW

mconigol, I'm still waiting. I only stopped for a bit of lunch, really want to get back to work please.

I find it very ironic that on this thread you accuse someone of something without bothering to read the evidence in front of you.

Ann22

Daroxtar wrote: »

Oh yeah? Really?? See any interesting names or evidence pop up

The mother waited 2 days before she notified the police that the wee one went missing.
During that time she washed her house down with petrol. Blood was found in the freezer belonging to Joana which the mother claimed came from a nose bleed after she had given Joana a beating.
The neighbours had testified that it was known around the area that the child was treated like a servant. The couple were found guilty in a court of law.
No, the police shouldn't have beaten her because it could well have led to her getting off scot free but it'd be very hard imo not to batter the pair of them.

Ann22

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

But couldn't she have got away with it due to police brutality and a forced confession?

Yeah Tipsy, it was pure stupid to do it but I don't know if I was in their shoes if I could restrain myself.

TheZohanS

mconigol wrote: »

lol! It doesn't invalidate anything! Lets say they are innocent and they talk openly with investigators. Anything they say could easily be misconstrued or turned against them. People on this very forum are using the McCanns emotions (or apparent lack of emotions) and twisting it into some kind of sudo evidence against them, imagine what they would do if they were given the opportunity to scrutinise detailed questioning.

Did you look at the video I posted yesterday that highlights my argument?(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

Silence is not an admission of guilt. Better to say nothing than to say the wrong thing.

No I didn't watch it, I stopped after I saw the text "5th Amendment", you do realise why that exists don't you?

Now answer the questions posed in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRvgK6M2_7Q

Bet you can't.

mconigol

ISDW wrote: »

Thats obviously because you don't bother reading posts. Go back and read a bit more, the madeleinefoundation is NOT run by the McCanns or any of their associates. Another poster put a link up to it before my reply. That particular foundation is - as has been pointed out by another poster after my comment - to try and get the law changed on children being left on their own, and it would appear to implicate the McCanns.

I await your apology.

I do apologise for now knowing that the Madeline Foundation was not run by the McCanns. My mistake.

ISDW wrote: »

mconigol, I'm still waiting. I only stopped for a bit of lunch, really want to get back to work please.

I find it very ironic that on this thread you accuse someone of something without bothering to read the evidence in front of you.

The thread was not about the Madeline Foundation so it was perfectly natural for me to assume you were referring to the McCanns general fundraising effort. You didn't quote the post you were responding to so it's not exactly easy to tell that's what you were referring to. There are over 500 posts on this thread and it's impossible to keep track of every single one.

Saying that I do apologise but in my defense your post came across to me as an attack on the McCanns which it obviously wasn't.

ISDW

mconigol wrote: »

I do apologise for now knowing that the Madeline Foundation was not run by the McCanns. My mistake.



The thread was not about the Madeline Foundation so it was perfectly natural for me to assume you were referring to the McCanns general fundraising effort. You didn't quote the post you were responding to so it's not exactly easy to tell that's what you were referring to. There are over 500 posts on this thread and it's impossible to keep track of every single one.

Saying that I do apologise but in my defense your post came across to me as an attack on the McCanns which it obviously wasn't.

I accept your apology, thanks. But my post was actually very clear as I cited the madeleinefoundation in it.

mconigol

TheZohan wrote: »

No I didn't watch it, I stopped after I saw the text "5th Amendment", you do realise why that exists don't you?

Yes I do and it serves to protect people. That was the intention, why else would it have been included into their bill of rights? To protect the guilty? But forget about the 5th amendment. The reasoning presented has little to do with it and is transferable anywhere. The only reason the 5th amendment is mentioned in it is because it's a discussion of american law and a civil right over there. That doesn't take away from the principle being discussed.

TheZohan wrote: »

Now answer the questions posed in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRvgK6M2_7Q

Bet you can't.

What a load of rubbish that video is. :rolleyes:
Everything in that video is all merely suggestion and innuendo.

The internet is full of crap like this. Some examples. I particularly like the last example because it basically the same rational used to imply the McCanns guilt by not being able or willing to prove their innocence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXD79fI9iY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWGa7tPbXMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frm3fNOFSuA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glRAN_8CkvQ

mconigol

TheZohan wrote: »

No I didn't watch it, I stopped after I saw the text "5th Amendment", you do realise why that exists don't you?

Now answer the questions posed in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRvgK6M2_7Q

Bet you can't.

ISDW wrote: »

I accept your apology, thanks. But my post was actually very clear as I cited the madeleinefoundation in it.

That makes sense now. But for somebody who thought this was the name of the McCanns organisation then it's not very obvious.

K-9

dark crystal wrote: »

Very possible? even taking into account the time during that three hours they were at dinner with friends?

I would say it was almost entirely impossible and improbable.

You are talking about two very slick and very sick operators if you truly believed they could do that and then act perfectly normally afterwards.

They regularly left them and went out to dinner, an hour at most would get the three ready for bed.

mconigol wrote: »

You said:


Where is the suggestion of what to do there exactly? You say what not to do but then don't actually suggest any alternatives.

Why are you so dismissive of the fact that they were never charged with anything? Why so dismissive of a campaign to try raise awareness and generate finances to do so?





em....because their daughter is missing? I think that would be a good enough reason. I would safely say they are getting their "middle class" hands dirtier than you and many others when it comes to trying to make a difference.

After reading your post and many others on here I've also come to the conclusion that people are indeed very, very weird.

There doesn't need to be any alternatives. They have a well financed fund as it is and Madeline is now a world wide known case.

I'm not dismissive of anything. Obviously they haven't been charged. It's the people dismissing awkward questions questioning the norm that are being dismissed.

TheZohanS

mconigol wrote: »

Yes I do and it serves to protect people. That was the intention, why else would it have been included into their bill of rights? To protect the guilty? But forget about the 5th amendment. The reasoning presented has little to do with it and is transferable anywhere. The only reason the 5th amendment is mentioned in it is because it's a discussion of american law and a civil right over there. That doesn't take away from the principle being discussed.



What a load of rubbish that video is. :rolleyes:
Everything in that video is all merely suggestion and innuendo.

The internet is full of crap like this. Some examples. I particularly like the last example because it basically the same rational used to imply the McCanns guilt by not being able or willing to prove their innocence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXD79fI9iY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWGa7tPbXMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frm3fNOFSuA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glRAN_8CkvQ

Resorting to strawmen now...that's pathetic. Answer my question...

Sir Oxman

Dudess wrote: »

Who said it was acceptable behaviour? Please enlight. Or are you talking about those who say it was a grave mistake but they're paying for it now? Because that is not the same as saying it is acceptable behaviour.

There are a coterie of posters on this thread that are ambiguous about the utter wrongness of leaving three babies alone as a matter of course - yes, they say it's a mistake or an error but then qualify it as if that excuses it.
It doesn't and it never will.

AudreyHepburn

gambiaman wrote: »

There are a coterie of posters on this thread that are ambiguous about the utter wrongness of leaving three babies alone as a matter of course - yes, they say it's a mistake or an error but then qualify it as if that excuses it.
It doesn't and it never will.

That is not what anyone is saying and you know it. As far as I can see no-one is being ambiguous about anything although if you can find posts to prove otherwise please do link to them.

What we're saying is that while they made a huge mistake that does not make them bad parents nor is it a reason to think they killed Madeleine or covered her death up.